M 

0 
0 
0 

8 
0 
9 

3 
1 
8 

GOODRICH 

Exposition  of  the  J.   D,   ^  M. 
'Villiams  Fraud. 


HJ 

6720 
A6 
1866 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/expositionofjdmwOOgoodiala 


EXPOSITION 


J.  D.  &  M.  WILLIAMS  FRAUD, 


OF   ITS   SETTLEMENT; 


THE  CHENERY  &  CO.  FRAUD, 


REMOVAL  OF  TIMOTHY  B.  DIX,  AND  HON.  SAMUEL  HOOPER'S 
EXTRAORDINARY  REPORT  THEREON; 


AND  OTHER 


MATTERS  AT  THE  BOSTON  CUSTOM  HOUSE. 


Br  J.  Z.  GOODRICH, 

Who  suBjnxs  the  Whole  as  an  Answer  to  all  specific  Charges 

AGAINST  HEM,   AND  A  VlNT>ICATION  OF  HIS  GENERAL    CONDUCT 

AND  Policy  as  Collector. 


BOSTON: 

ROCKWELL    AND    ROLLINS,    PRINTERS, 

122   Washington   Street. 

1866. 


INDEX. 


Page 
Baggage  smuggling  by  respectable  and  wealthy  —  Views  of  Secre- 
tary and  Mr.  Hooper  on 33 

Borate  Case  —  or  duties  improperly  refunded  on  Exportation    .        .  39 

Chase,  S.  P.  —Letter •  21 

Chenery  &  Co.  —  Attempt  to  defraud 18,  26 

Dix,  Timothy  B.  — Removed  for  aiding  Cheneryfc  Co.        .        .        .       18,25 
"         "                 Removal  approved  by  Seci'etary  Chase         .        .  28 
Dix,  General  John  A.  —  Appeals  to  Fessenden  and  McCuUock  to  re- 
instate his  brother  T.  B.  Dix 29 

Grand  Jury  —  Investigate  before 16 

Hooper  Samuel — Report  by  on  Chenery  and  Dix  case       ...  21 

"           "          His  law— ,  27 

Lucrative  office 46 

Suspicions  and  rumors 3 

Secretary  McCuUoch  —  Confidential  Correspondence  with  Messrs. 

Williams 16 

Secretary  McCuUoch  —  Correspondence  in  regard  to  reinstating  Dix  29 
"               "              Interview  with  by  Goodrich  .        .        .        .       31, 44 

Testimonials 46 

The  thirty-two  thousand  dollars 17 

Tuck  Amos  —  His  letter 15 

Mary  Samuel  A.  —  Extract  from  his  letter 6 

William,  J,  D.  and  M.  —  Evidence  of  the  Fraud          ....  6 

"               "                 Settlement,  facts  in  regard  to      .        .        .  11 

Williams  Moses  B.  —  Testimony          ...                ...  6 


UCSB 


L 


iBRARY 


TO  THE  PUBLIC. 


That  somebody,  properly  or  improperlj^,  has  attempted  to  impress 
the  public  with  the  belief  that  I  was  guilty  of  gross  official  misconduct 
during  the  latter  part  of  my  term  of  office  as  Collector  of  this  Port, 
scarcely  any  one,  I  suppose,  is  ignorant.  The  complaint  against  me 
began  earlier  in  certain  quarters,  by  denying  that  I  had  the  "  com- 
mercial experience"  required  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  du- 
ties of  Collector.  Representations  like  these  were  made  at  Wash- 
ington as  well  as  here,  and  so  much  credit  had  been  given  to  them 
here,  that  it  was  said,  about  the  time  of  my  removal,  even  by  those 
who  accorded  to  me  the  "  highest  integrity,"  that  "  for  the  want  of 
commercial  experience  (my)  administration  at  the  Custom  House 
had  been  marked  by  errors  which  made  (me)  unpopular."  That  there 
had  long  been  a  growing  unpopularity  on  my  part  with  a  certain  class 
of  importers  and  a  certain  public  man,  —  though  I  could  very  easily 
have  made  myself  their  special  favorite,  —  I  know  very  well.  I  also 
know  that  I  can  point  to  all  these  so  called  "  errors,"  and  state  pre- 
cisely what  they  were.  But  whether  they  could  have  been  "  corrected  " 
satisfactorily  to  the  parties,  by  any  amount  of  "  commercial  experi- 
ence "  without  the  aid  of  certain  "  mercantile  usages "  outside  the 
range  of  commercial  integrity,  every  reader  will  judge  for  himself. 
The  class  referred  to  quite  too  often  confounded  so  called  "  errors," 
which  resulted  from  the  want  of  commercial  integrity,  with  what  they 
called  "  mercantile  usage,"  and  it  was  in  that  way,  I  think  it  will  be 
found,  that  there  came  to  be  so  many  "marked"  errors  in  my  ad- 
ministration. 

But  at  length  the  assault  upon  me  assumed  the  form,  either  by 
insinuation,  rumor,  or  direct  charge,  of  gross  official  misconduct,  and 
so  much  has  been  said  to  impeach  not  merely  the  correctness,  but  the 
integrity  of  my  "administration  at  the  Custom  Hoiise,"  that  I  deem 
it  mj'  duty  to  myself  and  the  public  to  submit  such  a  statement  as 
will  present  matters  in  their  true  light,  which  I  now  proceed  to  do. 

SUSPICIONS  AND  RUMORS. 

The  following  appeared  in  the  Boston  Journal  of  the  27th  of  No- 
vember, as  part  of  a  despatch  from  its  Washington  correspondent 
"  Perley  "  :  — 

"  Some  of  the  offlcials  of  the  Trcasuiy  Department  here  are  anxious  to  know 
the  result  of  certain  investigations  now  being  raade  at  Boston  into  the  distri- 
bution of  a  heavy  penalty  collected  from  an  importer  of  French  wines." 

Mark  the  language  of  this. despatch :  "into  the  distribution  of  a 
heavy  penalty  collected."  The  implication  is  that  the  amount  collected 
had  not  been  properly  distributed  or  accounted  for,  and  that  that  was 
the  reason  the  Department  had  ordered  an  investigation.  Its  officials 
spoke  freely  to  newspaper  correspondents  of  the  investigation,  and 


doubtless  with  the  expectation  that  the  matter  would  through  them  be 
brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Boston  public.  It  may  therefore  be 
regarded  as  a  semi-official  despatch,  which  everybody  understood  to 
refer  to  the  J.  D.  &  M.  Williams  fraud  ;  to  me  as  the  accounting  offi- 
cer ;  and  to  an  investigation  before  the  Grand  Jury. 

The  Boston  Traveller  of  the  1st  of  December,  said  on  the  same 
subject :  — 

"  It  is  well  known  that  a  wealthy  Arm  in  this  city,  engaged  in  the  wine  and 
spirit  business,  Avas  detected  in  defrauding  the  Government  by  false  invoices. 
In  order  to  settle  the  claims  made  upon  it,  the  flrra  at  dilTerent  times  paid 
$  157,000,  but  of  this  sum  the  Government  received  only  f  127,000,  leaving 
§ 30,000  to  be  acconnted  for. 

"  Now  the  question  is,  what  became  of  this  sum  ?  As  the  reputation  of  certain 
parties  has  been  implicated,  we  understand  the  subject  has  been  brought  before 
the  Grand  Jury,  with  a  view  of  having  it  legally  investigated.  It  is  alleged 
that  the  $  30,000  was  pocketed  by  high  officials." 

Every  merchant  knows  that  if  any  money  was  paid  in  the  settlement 
referred  to,  whicli  should  have  been  accounted  for,  but  was  not.,  it  was 
paid  to  me  as  Collector,  or  with  my  knowledge  and  consent  paid  to 
somebody  else.  Of  course  I  am,  if  not  the  only  party,  a  party  whose 
"  reputation  "  is  directly  "  implicated." 

The  Boston  Commonwealth  of  the  2d  December,  says :  — 

"  For  some  time  past  there  have  been  rumors  throughout  the  commercial 
community  of  this  city  to  the  eft'ect  that  a  considerable  portion  of  a  flue  paid 
by  a  leading  wine-importing  house  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  had 
not  been  accounted  for ;  and  there  have  been  grave  suspicions  whispered  that 
the  missing  money  had  found  its  way  into  the  hands  of  the  late  Collector,  Hon. 
John  Z.  Goodrich,  or  some  of  his  associates.  *  *  This  rumor  in  time  found 
its  way  to  Washington,  and  in  some  minds  was  associated  with  the  recent 
change  of  incumbents  in  the  responsible  position  of  Collector.  ♦  *  That 
Mr.  Goodrich  has  been  deeply  injured  by  this  rumor  even  in  circles  wliere  it 
should  be  otherwise,  we  apprehend,  from  what  we  have  heard,  to  be  without 
doubt."  The  same  paper  further  speaks  of  it  as  "  the  unfavorable  rumor  so 
yenerally  associated  with  the  name  of  Mr.  Goodrich.  *  *  The  Grand  Jury  of 
this  District  is  now  giving  it  close  attention." 

Here  the  rumor  or  charge  is  that  a  considerable  portion  of  a  fine 
paid  by  a  leading  wine-importing  house  had  not  been  accounted  for, 
and  that  it  was  gravely  suspected  that  the  missing  money  had  found 
its  way  into  my  pocket. 

I  do  not  understand  any  of  these  papers  as  intending  to  vouch 
for  the  truth  of  the  statements  they  publish,  but  as  merely  repeating 
what  had  become  common  rumor.  The  charge  had  been  made  and 
repeated  in  conversations  much  earlier,  and  there  would  be  no  diffi- 
culty, if  that  were  my  present  purpose,  in  tracing  it  to  a  responsible 
author.  It  found  its  way,  according  to  one  of  the  quoted  extracts, 
to  Washington,  and  was  associated  in  some  minds  with  the  recent 
change  in  the  office  of  Collector ;  that  is,  that  it  was  the  cause 
of  my  removal.  And  it  may  not  be  improper  for  me  to  state,  what  I 
learned  from  two  or  three  members  of  Congress,  that  in  August,  1865,  a 
short  time  before  my  removal,  Hon.  Samuel  Hooper  stated  at  an  in- 
formal meeting  of  several  members  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation, 
that  he  had  received  a  letter  Irom  Mr.  McCulloch,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  informing  him  that  a  removal  of  the  Collector  had  been  de- 


cidcd  on,  and  requested  a  recommendation  by  the  delegation  of  another 
man  for  the  office.  The  letter  was  not  shown,  it  being,  as  Mr.  Hooper 
stated,  a  private  and  confidential  one  to  him.  The  other  members  ad- 
vised, and  some  of  them  very  strongly,  against  a  removal,  but  Mr. 
Hooper  said  they  had  not  been  requested  to  express  an  opinion  on  that 
question, and  added  that  Mr.  Goodrich  did  not  stand  well  at  the  Depart- 
ment, and,  referring  to  the  settlement  of  the  J.  D.  &  M.  Williams  fraud, 
said  the  Department  thought  there  was  something  wrong  about  it.  This 
was  the  idea  conveyed.  Other  remarks  were  made  by  Mr.  Hooper  in 
reference  to  my  connection  with  said  settlement,  which  I  do  not  here 
repeat.  One  of  the  delegation,  as  he  informed  me,  made  this  reply  : 
"  Tills  cannot  be  so.  Mr.  Goodrich  has  not  taken  money  which  he 
has  not  accounted  for  ;  he  is  honest,  and  incapable  of  doing  anything 
of  the  kind,  and  if  it  were  otherwise,  he  is  not  such  a  fool  as  to  take 
it  in  a  case  wliere  it  could  be  so  easily  found  out."  This  I  should  not 
repeat,  if  it  did  not  indicate  so  unmistakably  the  tenor  of  the  statement 
to  which  it  was  a  reply.  This  Williams  matter  was  discussed  at  this 
conference,  and  it  was  understood,  as  some  of  the  delegation  informed 
me,  to  be  a  cause  of  removal.  No  other,  as  I  understood  them,  was 
assigned. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Moses  B. 
Williams,  one  of  the  firm  of  J.  D.  &.  M.  Williams :  — 

"A  claim  was  made  upon  our  firm  during  the  year  18G5  in  behalf  of  the  IT. 
S.  Government,  for  sums  alleged  to  be  due  on  account  of  previous  importa- 
tions of  wine  by  our  firm.  There  were  two  claims  made,  both  of  which  were 
settled.  Receipts  were  given  by  the  Collector,  or  the  Deputy  Collector,  to  us 
for  the  money  paid  to  the  Government.  The  first  receipt  I  cannot  find,  but 
the  amount  receipted  for  was  #25,224,  paid  I  think  in  the  afternoon  of  March 
28,  18G5.  The  second  receipt  I  here  produce,  dated  May  8,  1865,  for  one  him- 
dred  thousand  dollars.  We  paid  the  money  in  the  settlement  of  both  the 
claims  to  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Way.  Mr.  Way  acted  as  our  agent,  and  represented 
our  firm  in  what  he  did.  We  paid  Mr.  Waj'  not  varying  far  from  $  157,000. 
We  paid  first  $29,224,  and  got  a  receipt  for  $  25,244.  A  portion  of  the  $  157,000 
was  paid  between  these  dates — I  mean  the  dates  of  the  two  receipts — and  the 
balance  at  the  time  of  settlement.  We  paid  $  7,000  to  Mr.  Way  on  the  2d  of 
May,  1865.  I  did  understand  at  the  time  said  payments  were  made  that 
$125,244  was  all  that  was  received  by  the  Collector  in  settlement  of  said  claims 
with  the  Government,  and  I  have  never  made  any  statements  to  the  contrary. 
It  was  not  represented  to  me,  nor  did  I  understand  that  any  portion  of  the 
excess  over  $  125,244  was  to  be  paid  to  Mr.  Goodrich,  the  Collector.  I  am  the 
member  of  the  firm  by  whom  said  negotiations  were  conducted  and  settlements 
made.  Not  a  particle  of  this  money,  nor  any  money,  so  far  as  I  understood, 
was  paid  to  Mr.  Waj'  by  us  for  his  services  in  the  matter. 

"  We  had  a  correspondence  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  reference 
to  the  settlement  of  said  claims.  I  should  decline  to  produce  it  without  the 
permission  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  (Adjourned  for  one  day.)  Hav- 
ing thought  the  matter  over  since  yesterday,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  to 
decline  to  produce  the  correspondence  asked  for.  (On  being  told  by  the  mag- 
istrate that  it  was  his  duty  to  produce  it,  adjourned  again  at  request  of  Mr. 
Williams  to  enable  him  to  consult  counsel.)  The  date  of  the  letter  we  received 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  the  5th  of  June,  1865.  My  answer 
was  dated  on  the  12th  of  the  same  month.  It  was  in  the  name  of  my  firm.  The 
correspondence  was  a  confidential  one,  and  I  must  still  decline  to  produce  it." 
(The  matter  was  not  pressed  further.) 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Way,  dated  December 
19th,  1865:  — 


•'  It  is  simple  justice  to  Mr.  Goodrich  for  ine  to  say  tliat  I  never  paid  liim, 
or  know  of  liis  being  paid,  one  dollar,  eitlier  directly  or  indirectly ;  and  I  am 
confident  he  never  received  fi'oni  Messrs.  Williams  &  Co.,  or  any  one  else, 
any  sum  of  money  on  account  of  settlement  or  anytliing  connected  therewith. 

•'  I  write  this  without  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Goodrich  or  any  of  his  frieuds." 

Next  I  owe  it  to  myself  and  the  public  to  exhibit  the 

EVIDENCE  OF  THE  FRAUD. 

The  history  of  the  origin  and  practice  of  this  great  fraud  upon  the 
revenue  of  the  United  States,  by  a  firm  that  has  for  so  many  decades 
taken  first  rank  among  the  most  respectable  houses  of  Boston,  will  form 
an  instructive,  and  in  some  sense  an  interesting  chapter  in  the  com- 
mercial annals  of  the  country  ;  a  chapter  which  I  would  willingly  have 
allowed  to  remain  unwritten,  had  not  the  Messrs.  Williams  themselves 
raised  an  issue  which  can  be  met  in  no  other  way.  They  have  sought, 
and  I  believe  still  seek,  —  though  convicted  by  their  own  tacit  confes- 
sion of  their  guilt,  —  to  blind  the  eyes  of  a  credulous  public  by  the 
plausible  pretext  that  they  have  been  made  the  victims  of  persecution. 
It  is  not  long  since  one  of  the  largest  capitalists  in  State  Street  re- 
marked to  me  that  he  thought  the  treatment  they  had  received  from 
the  Government  was  all  wrong,  as  it  would  have  been  if  the  informa- 
tion he  had  derived  from  them  direct,  or  through  others,  had  been  cor- 
rect. And  it  was  onlj'^  a  few  weeks  ago  that  Mr.  Williams,  senior, 
protested  to  one  of  the  most  intelligent  and  respectable  merchants  of 
Boston  that  they  were  innocent,  and  said  he  could  convince  him  that 
they  were,  adding,  that  not  they,  but  those  who  had  taken  their  money, 
were  in  the  wrong.  They  have  taken  great  pains  to  create  the  impres- 
sion that  they  paid  a  large  sum  in  settlement,  not  because  they  had 
really  defrauded  the  Government,  but  to  avoid  a  long  and  vexatious 
lawsuit,  which  would  have  been  especially  annoying  to  the  senior  in 
the  fii-m. 

As  a  full  and  complete  answer  to  all  this,  I  invite  public  attention 
to  the  following  facts,  first  premising  that  the  information  which  led 
to  the  discovery  and  proof  of  the  fraud,  was  furnished  by  Mr.  W.  B. 
Farwell,  of  San  Francisco,  who  had  been  to  France  as  the  special 
agent  of  the  Department.  The  proof  was  mainly  derived  from  the 
books  of  the  Messrs.  Williams  themselves,  obtained  by  warrant  from 
the  District  Judge  on  application  from  the  Collector. 

FACTS. 

Prior  to  1846,  for  several  years  Messrs.  J.  D.  &  M.  Williams  had 
regularly  received  from  L.  Roederer,  the  manufacturer,  at  Reims  in 
France,  shipments  of  champagne  wine,  familiarly  known  in  Boston  as 
the  "  Schi-eider  brand."  This  wine  was  obtained  by  purchase  from 
Roederer  under  a  contract  entered  into  in  1841.  The  price  paid  was 
$  9  per  dozen  for  quarts,  and  $  10  for  pints,  deducting  therefrom  the 
costs  of  importation,  such  as  freight,  «Scc.,  and  remitting  the  net 
amount  so  aiTived  at  to  Roederer  on  the  receipt  of  each  invoice  or 
shipment. 

In  July,  1846,  Congress  enacted  a  new  tariff  which  changed  the  duty 
on  champagne  from  forty  cents  per  gallon,  specific,  to  forty  per  cent. 
ad  valorem,  which  act  took  effect  the  following  December.    Trior  to 


this,  all  the  champagne  thus  imported  b}^  the  Messrs.  "Williams  was 
invoiced  at  $  9  and  $  10,  as  the  actual  foreign  market  value.  The 
duty  being  then  specific,  no  reason  existed  for  any  otlier  than  the 
correct  market  value  being  named  in  the  invoices. 

From  this  date  the  story  is  best  told  from  the  letter  books  of  the 
Messrs.  Williams  themselves.  I  quote  from  page  404  of  letter  book 
E.  Under  date  of  Boston,  July  31st,  1846,  they  wrote  Roederer  as 
follows :  — 

"The  proposed  tariflf  bill,  which  we  named  in  our  last,  has  passed  the  Sen- 
ate and  will  become  a  law,  taking  ett'ect  on  and  after  December  first  next.  The 
new  duty  on  champagne  wine  is  forty  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  instead  of  the 
present  specific  duty  of  40  cents  per  gallon,  and  25  cents  per  dozen  for  bottles, 
which  is  about  •$  1.15  to  $  1.25  per  basket  for  whole  bottles,  and  $  1.40  to  $1.50 
for  pint  bottles,  depending  whether  the  dozen  is  estimated  to  contain  21  gals, 
or  2i  gals.  Messrs.  Piper  &  Co.  have  invoiced  their  wines  at  f.  2.50  (2i  francs) 
or  f.  30  (30  francs)  per  basket  on  board,  both  for  whole  and  half  bottles,  and 
have  sent  a  consular  certittcate  to  that  effect ;  if  you  should  do  the  same  the 
new  duty  would  be  forty  per  cent,  on  f.  30  (30  francs),  say  12  francs,  or  about 
double  the  present  dutj\  The  law  has  passed  the  present  week,  and  we  liavcnot 
been  able  to  see  it.  We  will  ^vTite  to  you  again  on  the  subject  by  the  next 
steamer.  .  .  .  Your  next  shipment  had  better  be  accompanied  by  a  con- 
sular certificate,  you  swearing  to  the  invoice,  which  is  to  be  made  at  as  low  a 
rate  as  your  conscience  will  allow.  That  there  may  be  a  uniform  course  pursued 
by  your  houses  at  Keims,  you  had  better  consult  with  Piper  &  Co.  and  some 
of  the  other  houses  who  ship  much  to  this  country,  that  there  may  be  some 
uniform  invoice  price  adopted  by  them  on  wine  which  is  shipped  here  on  their 
own  account.     Your  own  discretion  will  however  tell  you  if  this  is  advisable." 

Again  on  the  15th  of  August,  1846,  they  wrote  to  Roederer,  as 
appears  by  their  letter  book  E,  page  413,  as  follows :  — 

"  The  new  tariff  fixes  the  duty  on  all  wines  at  forty  per  cent,  ad  valorem ;  on 
bottles,  corks,  and  baskets  at  thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We  hope  that  the 
order  which  we  gave  you  on  the  15th  of  July  for  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  bas- 
kets of  wine,  will  be  executed  and  arrive  here  previous  to  December  1st,  at 
which  date  the  new  duties  take  effect.  But,  in  order  to  be  prepared  for  any 
accident,  you  had  better  invoice  this  shipment  at  as  low  a  rate  as  yo^ir  conscience 
will  allow  yon  to  sicear  to  it,  because  it  must  be  accompanied  by  a  consular  cer- 
tificate. We  named  in  our  last  that  Piper  &  Co.  invoiced  their  wines  at  thirty 
francs  per  basket,  on  board  at  Havre.  The  principal  houses  at  Reims  had 
better  adopt  some  system  of  invoicing ;  we  mean  those  houses  who  ship  much 
to  New  York  and  Boston,  but  you  and  Piper  ship  much  more  than  any  other 
houses.  If  you  conclude  to  invoice  the  wine  at  thirty  francs  per  basket  on 
board,  you  must  make  the  invoice  in  the  following  manner :  — 

"  Invoice  of baskets  of  Champagne  wine,  shipped  per  ship 


for  account  of  myself,  and  consigned  to  John  D.  &  M.  Williams  and  Edward 
Codman  &  Co.,  for  sale,  or  for  their  acceptance. 

"  C  &  W  No.  —  to  No.  — ,  1250  baskets  Champagne  wine,  viz. :  the  wine  at 
23f.  each;  the  bottles,  corks,  and  baskets  at  It'.,  30  francs  per  basket  on 
board  at  Havre,     f.  37,500. 

"  The  duties  will  then  be  cast  on  the  wine  valued  at  23  ftancs,  at  forty  per 
cent.,  and  the  bottles,  corks,  and  baskets  at  7  francs,  thirty  per  cent." 

Up  to  this  time  all  wines  received  by  Messrs.  J.  D.  &  M.  "Williams 
had  been  forwarded  as  regular  purchases,  as  per  invoices  in  the  Cus- 
tom House.  From  the  form  of  invoice  given  in  the  last  letter,  it  will 
be  seen  that  to  aid  in  covering  up  the  fraud,  Roederer  was  instructed 
to  make  his  invoices  as  consignments,  although,  as  shown,  they  were 
actually  purchased. 


8 

On  the  15th  of  September,  1846,  they  wrote  to  Roederer,  as  ap- 
appears  by  their  letter  book  E,  page  431,  as  follows  :  — 

"  We  hope  that  our  last  order  for  wine  may  be  executed  and  forwarded  im- 
mediately, so  as  to  arrive  before  the  first  of  December,  when  the  new  duties 
take  efiect. 

*♦  We  shall  soon  be  wanting  more  wine,  and  we  would  like  to  know  if  vou 
can  make  any  discount  from  the  net  amount  which  you  now  receive  for  the 
same  quality  of  wine,  after  the  new  tariff  takes  eflTect.  We  ask  this  question 
because  we  are  confident  that  we  shall  not  be  able  to  obtain  an  advance  price 
equivalent  to  the  increase  of  duty  after  December  1st,  next-" 

To  this  letter,  under  date  of  October  4th,  1846,  Roederer  responded 

as  follows :  — 


"  It  is  well  understood  that  the  accident  of  new  duties  falls  to  your  charge, 
if  unfortunatel}'^  the  ship  should  be  retained  and  not  arrive  before  the  1st  of 
December  next.  This  is  in  all  justice  and  equity,  and  you  have  promised  it  in 
one  of  your  last  letters, 

"  Your  question  relative  to  a  diminution  of  price  is  consequently  answered 
in  advance,  and  I  refer  again  upon  this  subject  to  my  former  letters,  viz. :  that 
of  29th  of  August,  &c.  Since  that  letter,  a  vintage  of  excellent  quality  but  of 
little  product  and  of  an  exorbitantly  dear  price,  has  made  it  more  impossible 
than  ever  for  me  to  make  the  smallest  concession,  and  I  regret  it  infinitely, 
gentlemen,  for  I  have  always  the  liveliest  desire  to  be  agreeable  to  you,  and 
to  contribute  as  much  as  possible  to  the  [greatest  extension  of  my  relations 
with  your  honorable  house. 

"  But  if  you  wish  that  I  continue  to  send  you  that  excellent  quality  that  I 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  furnishing,  and  which  still  distinguishes  my  ship- 
ment of  to-day,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  you  add  to  the  price  of  $9  for 
the  bottles,  and  $10  for  the  half  bottles,  the  augmentation  of  the  duties  of  the 
new  tariff",  and  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  for  a  base  the  price  named  in  the  ficti- 
tious invoice  which  accompanies  the  wines,  that  is  to  say,  36  francs  per  basket, 
on  board  at  Havre."  ***»«** 

Mr.  Roederer  being  thus  fixed  in  his  prices,  Messrs.  "Williams  and 
Codman  continued  to  receive  the  wine  upon  the  old  conditions,  with 
the  advantage  of  the  reduced  price  in  the  false  invoice  for  each  ship- 
ment for  use  at  the  Custom  House,  At  first  Roederer  decided  that 
he  could  not  put  the  price  in  the  false  invoice  at  30  francs,  as  they 
had  requested,  and  proposed  to  make  it  35  francs,  but  finally  acceded 
to  this  request,  and  made  up  his  false  invoices  for  the  Custom  House 
at  30  francs,  which  was  $5.58  per  basket,  instead  of  $9  and  $10,  the 
price  actually  paid,  less  charges. 

In  various  other  letters  the  Messrs.  Williams  instruct  Roederer 
how  to  invoice  his  wine,  and  the  latter  responds  as  follows  :  — 

"With  this  you  will  find  the  invoice  of  the  1567  baskets  which  are  going  to 
leave  Havre  the  20th  inst.  (  )  on  board  the  Versailles.    Have  the  kind- 

ness to  credit  me  with  this  shipment  for  $14,570,  payable  as  usual.  M.  Ludin 
—  the  shipping  agent  at  Havre  —  vrtll  join  to  this  letter  (which  will  leave  by 
the  Versailles)  an  invoice  legalized  by  the  American  consul ;  a  fictitious  in- 
voice which  I  have  made  according  to  your  instructions,  and  in  accord  with 
Messrs.  Piper  &  Co.,  in  French,  as  is  then:  custom  to  do.  I  hope  this  will 
satisfy  you  in  all  respects." 

This,  however,  did  not  quite  satisfy  the  Messrs.  Williams  "  in  all 
respects,"  for  under  date  of  April  30th,  1847  (letter  book  F,  page  44), 
they  replied  as  follows :  — 


9' 

"  The  form  of  the  Invoice  as  directed  in  ours  of  the  31st  of  March,  we  be- 
lieve to  be  the  best  that  you  can  adopt  until  we  find  some  reason  to  change  it, 
but  ice  leant  you  to  swear  to  the  invoice  instead  of  Mr.  Ludin.  You  can  swear 
to  it  before  a  magistrate  in  your  own  place,  and  the  American  consul  must 
certify  that  due  credit  is  to  be  given  to  such  magistrate." 

In  a  spirit  of  reciprocal  accommodation  •  Mr.  Roederer,  from  this 
time  on  up  to  the  spring  of  1865,  complied  with  this  request,  and 
throughout  1847  he  wrote,  with  every  shipment,  letters  in  which  ap- 
pear such  expressions  as  these  :  — 

Under  date  of  January  6th,  1847 :  — 

"Here  is  the  invoice,  and  the  fictitious  invoice,  of  the  1170  baskets.  The 
genuine  invoice  amounts  to  $10,700,  which  you  will  please  carry  to  my 
credit  upon  the  old  conditions." 

Another  letter :  — 

"  To-day  I  have  the  pleasure  to  remit  to  you  the  invoice  of  the  488  baskets, 
which  are  going  to  leave  the  loth  inst.  (July,  1847),  on  board  the  Wm.  God- 
dard.  Will  you  credit  me  with  this  shipment  for  ^4,430,  upon  the  ordinary 
conditions  ?  A  fictitious  invoice  you  will  be  provided  with  at  the  same  time  through 
Mr.  Ludin."  ,       ^ 

Undei-  date  of  October  11th,  1847 :  — 

"  I  have  herewith  the  honor  to  send  the  invoice  of  the  527  baskets  ordered 
the  14th  of  August,  amounting  to  §4,850,  and  payable  upon  the  ordinary  con- 
ditions. A  fictitious  invoice,  conveniently  legalized,  you  will  receive  through  Mr. 
Ludin." 

The  Messrs.  Williams,  on  the  14th  of  August,  1847,  wrote  Mr. 
Roederer  (letter  book  F,  page  102,)  as  follows  :  — 

"  "We  would  like  some  wine,  but  should  be  glad  to  have  it  come  direct  to 
Boston.  We  get  along  better  with  the  Custom  Hov^e  here  in  Boston  than  in  New 
York.  *  *  ♦  Let  the  invoice  and  all  the  verifications  be  the  same  as 
those  by  the  Versailles.    You  can  make  no  improvement  in  these  forms." 

Again,  later,  they  say :  —  , 

"  We  hope  that  you  may  be  able  to  ship  us  some  by  the  Moselle,  particularly 
the  half  bottles,  which  are  passed  by  t<s  in  Boston  at  twenty  cents  per  basket  less 
than  in  Neic  York.  There  are  also  some  other  advantages  in  having  the  wine 
come  directly  into  Boston," 

On  the  subject  of  double  invoices,  the  Messrs.  Williams  finally 
wrote  Roederer  on  the  15th  of  November,  1847,  as  appears  by  their 
letter  book-F,  page  .162,  as  follows :  — 

"  In  your  future  shipments,  we  think  it  best  that  you  should  send  only  the  invoice 
for  the  Custom  Hoxise,  and  make  no  reference  in  your  letters  to  any  other  price, 
but  simply  say  in  your  letters  that  you  inclose  to  us  the  invoice  of  the  wine,  with 
consular  certificates,  &c.,  shipped  on  your  account  according  to  existing  agree- 
ment." 

To  this,  Roederer  responded  as  follows :  — •' 

"  My  next  will  remit  to  you  the  legalized  invoice  for  the  Custom  House, 
and,  following- your  wishes,  I  will  make  no  reference  to  any  other  invoice." 

From  that  time  to  1865,  no  other  invoice  than  the  fictitious  one 
made  for  use  at  the  Custom  House,  was  sent.  For  nearly  nineteen 
years  the  system  of  fraud  thus  inauguarated  ran  smoothly.     Long 

2 


10 

and  successfhl  habit  had  so  sanctioned  the  practice,  that  doubtless  it 
entered  as  much  into  the  basis  upon  which  business  was  done  by  this 
house,  as  any  other  element  of  its  commercial  ethics.  It  came  down, 
literally,  from  father  to  son. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  oath  that  was  taken  in  each 
importation  by  one  of  the  firm :  — 

a  I do  solemnly  and  truly  swear  that  the  invoice  now  produced 

by  me  to  the  Collector,  is  the  true  and  only  invoice  received ;  *  *  that  I  do 
not  know  or  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  other  invoice  of  the  said  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise ;  that  the  entry  now  delivered  to  the  Collector  con- 
tains a  just  and  true  account  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  ac- 
cording to  the  said  invoice ;  that  nothing  has  been,  on  my  part,  nor  to  my 
kno\vJedge  on  the  part  of  any  other  person,  concealed  or  suppressed,  whereby 
the  United  States  may  be  defrauded  ot  any  part  of  the  duty  lawfully  due.  *  * 
And  I  do  ftirther  solemnly  swear,  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief, 
the  invoice  now  produced  by  me  exhibits  the  actual  cost  or  fair  market  value 
at ,  of  the  said  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise." 

SHERRY  WINES. 

>■. 

,  This  house  also  imported,  and  entered  at  fraudulent  prices,  the 
well  known  Sherry  wines,  as  their  books  showed,  and  as  they  them- 
selves confessed,  by  the  prompt  payment  of  $25,224,  being  ttie  amount 
of  three  invoices,  viz. '.- — 

One  October,  1863 $8,808 

One  January,  1864 4,156 

One  April,  1864 12,260 


$25,224 
There  were  double  invoices  in  each  case — one  for  the  Custom 
House  and  one  to  settle  by.  This  was  discovered  very  soon  after 
entering  upon  an  examination  of  their  books.  They  requested  an 
interview,  "and  Mr.  Williams,  senior,  Moses  B.  Williams,  and  Mr. 
Corey,  met  the  Collector,  Naval  Officer,  and  others,  at  the  Custom 
House  after  the  close  of  business  hours  the  27th  of  March,  1865.  Mr. 
Williams,  senior's,  first  excuse  was  that  they  were  consignees.  But  it 
soon  appeared  from  answers  to  two  or  three  questions,  that  they  were 
purchasers,  and  paid  no  attention  to  the  invoice  price  in  making  re- 
mittances for  their  wines.  They  then  proposed  to  pay  the  amount  of 
these  invoices,  and  deposited  the  same  afternoon  United  States  7  3-10 
bonds  sufficient  to  cover  the  amount,  and  redeemed  them  by  paying 
the  money  on  the  opening  of  the  Banks  the  next  day,  which  was 
March  28th. 

Most  of  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  Champagne  were  discovered  after 
this,  and  a  word  more  remains  to  be  said  on  this  head.  Official  in- 
vestigations, set  on  foot  within  the  previous  two  years,  showed  that 
Champagne  wines  were  being  imported  at  fraudulent  prices.  Seizures 
were  made  at  San  Francisco  and  New  York.  These  alarmed  Mr. 
Roederer,  who,  in  a  letter  to  the  Messrs.  Williams,  under  date  of 
Reims,  June  1,  1864,  wrote  to  them  as  follows  :  — 

"  In  remitting  herewith  a  copy  of  my  last  letter,  I  believe  that  I  ought  to  ask 
if  the  seizures  which  have  been  made  in  New  York,  of  wines  which  the  Custom 
House  pretends  are  invoiced  too  low,  renders  necessary  any  change  whatever 
in  the  prices  in  the  invoices  which  I  shall  address  to  you  in  the  future. 

"  If,  according  to  custom,  you  address  me  an  order  for  a  shipment  direct,  — 


11    . 

t 

which  will  probably  take  place  about  the  first  of  July,  — have  the  kindness  to 
add  your  instructions  upon  this  subject,  for  I  desire  that  your  interests  shall 
be  protected,  and  you  know  better  than  I  under  what  circumstances  the  seiz- 
ures in  question  have  been  made." 

This  elicited  no  reply ;  and  on  the  21st  of  Decen^er,  1864,  Roederer 
again  wrote :  — 

"  I  had  hoped  to  receive  from  you  new  instructions  upon  the  subject  of  the 
value  which  it  is  necessary  to  indicate  in  my  invoices  for  the  wines  which  you 
order. 

"  The  seizures  which  the  Custom  House  has  made  render  necessary  the 
greatest  precautions,  and  as  the  shipment  is  always  made  at  your  risks  and 
perils,  I  cannot  put  the  wines  en  route  and  make  the  invoices  at  the  old  price, 
for  fear  of  exposing  you  to  trouble." 

To  this  the  Messrs.  Williams  replied  as  follows  :  — 

"  It  may  be  well  to  add  two  francs  to  the  prices  of  each  wines.  *  »  *  • 
We  think  we  should  have  had  no  difficulty  with  the  old  way  of  invoicing,  but  as 
the  other  houses  are  troubled,  and  as  they  are  all  making  their  invoices  higher, 
you  had  better  make  the  change  which  we  propose,  as  a  matter  of  consistency 
with  others." 

Thus  stood  the  matter  when  this  long  practised  fraud  was  brought 
to  light.  The  amount  of  Champagne  wines  alone,  entered  at  the 
Custom  House  between  1846  and  1865,  by  this  old  and  wealthy  house, 
at  a  fraudulent  undervaluation,  was  over  two  million  and  two  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars,  as  shown  by  their  own  books. 

THE  SETTLEMENT. 

Hon.  Alpheus  Hardy,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Williams,  senior,  as  he 
said,  called  at  the  Custom  Hoiise  to  confer  with  me  upon  the  subject 
of  the  alleged  fraud,  and  the  probable  terms  upon  which  it  might  be 
settled.  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Way  had  before  offered,  by  authority,  as  he 
said,  $100,000,  which  no  one  then  proposed  to  entertain  or  even  con- 
sider. Mr.  Hardy  was  strongly  impressed  with  a  belief  of  Mr.  Wil- 
liams's innocence,  from  explanations  he  had  made  to  him  the  previous 
evening.  I  presented  the  case  and  the  correspondence  to  him  very 
much  as  detailed  above,  and  he  reported  to  Mr.  Williams,  and  saw 
me  again  two  or  three  times  on  the  subject.  The  sums  named  within 
which  a  settlement  might  possibly  be  made  were  $300,000  to  $500,000, 
but  I  told  him  I  had  no  authority  to  determine  the  amount.  It  was 
then  supposed  they  were  liable  for  the  whole  amount  of  the  invoices, 
ascertained  then  to  be  about  $1,500,000,  but  soon  afterwards  to  ex- 
ceed $2,200,000.  About  this  time  Mr.  Hardy  retired,  and  Mr.  Way 
again  appeared  as  the  friend  of  the  Messrs.  Williams,  and  was  per- 
sistent and  active  in  their  behalf,  and  repeated  the  offer  of  $100,000. 
As  I  had  no  authority  to  settle  or  compromise,  I  deemed  it  my  duty 
to  present  the  question  to  the  Secretary,  and  did  so.  Soon  after  Mr. 
Jordon,  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  visited  Boston  to  advise  in  the 
matter.  After  laying  before  him  all  the  facts,  the  question  arose, 
what  sum  should  be  accepted  of  the  Messrs.  Williams  in  settlement. 
A  conference  on  the  subject  was  had  between  the  Solicitor,  Mr.  Far- 
well,  who  had  aided  the  Government  in  the  investigation,  Mr.  Tuck, 
the  Naval  Officer,  and  myself.  I  stated  in  substance  that  I  would 
not  oppose  a  settlement,  but  my  opinion  was  that  a  thorough  exami- 


12 

nation  before  a  court  and  jury  would  do  more  to  prevent  similar  frauds, 
in  the  future,  than  any  amount  of  money  that  could  be  obtained  by 
compromise.  Others  thought  it  would  be  decidedly  better  for  the 
Government  to  adjust  the  matter  by  compromise,  but  no  one  named 
less  than  $300,Q0Cij  Finally,  the  sum  of  $850,000  was  agreed  upon 
as  the  lowest  that  should  be  offered  in  settlement.  I  concurred 
in  a  settlement  on  this  basis,  though  I  had  favored  a  larger  sum. 
The  Solicitor  then  had  an  interview  with  the  Messrs.  Williams  at 
their  counting  room,  and  offered  to  accept  $350,000  and  discharge  the 
claim.  The  offer  was  declined.  I  was  then  authorized  to  compro- 
mise for  that  sum,  and,  if  not  paid,  directed  to  report  the  case  to  the 
District  Attorney  for  prosecution,  and  the  Solicitor  returned  to  Wash- 
ington, supposing  all  the  statutes  of  limitations  had  been  repealed, 
and  that  the  Williamses  were  liable  for  the  whole  amount  of  the  im- 
portations back  to  1846.  The  negotiation  proceeded  upon  the  idea 
that  they  were  thus  liable,  —  they  offering  $100,000,  and  the  Govern- 
ment asking  $350,000.  At  length  it  was  discovered  that  by  mistake 
one  of  the  statutes  of  limitations  had  not  been  repealed,  and  that 
consequently  there  could  be  no  claim  on  importations  which  had  been 
made  more  than  five  years.  The  importations  within  five  years 
amounted  to  about  $550,000.  The  claira  of  the  Government  was  thus 
reduced  from  over  $2,200,000  to  that  sum.  This  I  did  not  regafd  as  a 
reason  why  it  should  be  settled  for  less  than  the  sum  before  named,  viz., 
$350,000.  But  Iklr.  Farwell  and  Mr.  Tuck  thought  otherwise,  and 
favored  a  reduction  at  first  to  about  $200,000  or  $250,000.  Mr.  Way 
was  untiring  in  his  efforts  to  induce  an  acceptance  of  $100,000  in 
settlement,  and  at  length  Mr.  Farwell  and  Mr.  Tuck  deemed  it  best 
to  accept  that  sum,  and  proposed  that  Mr.  F.  should  go  to  Washing- 
ton and  present  to  the  Secretary  and  Solicitor  the  reasons  which  had 
induced  them  finally  to  favor  a  compromise  for  $100,000,  and^  obtain 
the  Secretary's  authority  to  accept  that  sum  if  he  should  concur  in 
their  views.  Prominent  among  these  reasons  were  those  given  by 
]Mr.  Tuck  in  his  published  letter,  viz.,  "  I  fully  believed,"  to  quote 
his  own  words,  "  though  the  facts  showed  a  larger  amount  due,  that 
the  sums  paid,  being  in  the  aggi-egate  $125,224,  were  the  maximum 
which  the  Government  could  recover,  without  protracted  litigation, 
and  without  the  delays  and  hazards  to  success  which  wealth  and  in- 
fluence can  always  command."  I  did  not  give  the  weight  to  these 
views  which  they  did,  but  was  willing  Mr.  Farwell  should  present  the 
whole  case  to  the  Secretary.  He  then  prepared  a  paper  addressed  to 
the  Secretary,  designed  for  my  signature,  Mr.  Tuck's,  and  his  own, 
recommending  a  compromise  for  $100,000.  This  I  declined  to  sign 
in  the  form  of  a  recommendation,  as  I  did  not  wish  to  express  an 
opinion  that  it  ought  to  be  so  settled,  for  my  views  were  clear  that  it 
ought  not  to  be ;  but  I  was  willing  to  concur  in  a  reference  of  the 
matter  to  the  Department,  and  to  express  my  acquiescence  in  the 
proposition  to  accept  $100,000  if  it  should  deem  a  settlement  on  those 
terms  advisable.  Mr.  Farwell  then  altered  the  paper  so  as  to  ex- 
press substantially  that  idea,  and  I  signed  it.  But  on  further  reflec- 
tion, and  before  Mr.  Farwell  had  reached  Washington,  I  decided  to 
telegraph  the  Department  and  advise  against  the  terms  proposed,  and 
did  so,  and  then  expressed  very  decidedly  the  same  opinion  by  letter. 
On  the  morning  of  the  6th  of  May  Mr.  Farwell  returned,  and  informed 


13 

me  that  the  Secretary  had  decided  to  accept  the  $100,000,  and  the 
next  day  the  mail  brought  a  letter  from  the  Solicitorf  of  which  the 
following  is  a  copy  :  — 

"  Treasury  Department, 
"Solicitor's  Office,  May  6,  18Go. 

*'  Sir,  —  I  have  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  facts  aud  pa- 
pers relative  to  the  frauds  committed  by  J.  D.  &  M.  Williams  aud  Edward 
Codman  &  Co.,  in  the  importation  at  Boston  of  wines  and  other  merchandise 
for  a  series  of  years  past,  and  the  proposal  of  the  parties  implicated  to  pay  the 
sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  in  satisfaction  of  all  claims  which  the 
United  States  may  have,  for  duties,  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  arising 
upon  said  importations  or  incurred  by  reason  of  the  frauds  therein,  or  other 
improper  conduct  in  relation  thereto,  and  the  Secretary  having  examined  the 
subject,  directs  me  to  instruct  you  to  accept  the  compromise  proposed.  I 
have  therefore  to  say  that  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  uccept 
and  receive  from  the  parties  in  question,  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  United  States  legal  tender  notes,  in  fliU  satisfaction  and  discharge 
of  all  claims  of  the  United  States  arising  out  of  the  importations  referred  to, 
or  out  of  the  acts  of  any  and  all  the  parties  interested  therein,  or  in  relation 
thereto ;  and  that  j'ou  will  dispose  of  said  sum  according  to  law. 
"Very  respectfully, 

"EDWAED  JOEDON,  Solicitor. 

"J.  Z.  Goodrich,  Esq.,  Collector  of  Customs,  Boston." 

I  still  hesitated,  and  on  this,  to  me,  very  strong  ground,  viz.,  that 
it  was  not  half  the  amount  of  the  duties  that  had  been  unlawfully 
withheld,  with  the  interest.  During  the  progi*ess  of  the  negotiation, 
occupying  some  five  weeks,  Mr.  Farwell,  at  my  request,  had  computed 
the  amount  that  the  Messrs.  Williams  had  saved  in  duties  on  the 
Champagne  alone,  and  found  that  it  was  just  about  $150,000 

Annual  interest,  for  saj'  nine  and  a  half  years,  half  the  time, 

would  be  about  $11 1',000;  he  called  it         .         .         .         100,000 


Showing  that  they  had  made  and  the  Government  had  lost 

at  least $250,000 

]SIr.  Way  had  also  made  a  computation,  and  had  frequently  admitted 
that  the  amount  of  duties  withheld  was  $100,000 ;  he  claimed  that 
it  would  not  exceed  that, $100,000 

Upon  which  the  interest,  computed  in  the  same  way,  would 

amount  to  about 74,000 


$174,000 

The  average  of  the  two  sums  was  $212,000 

Mr.  Way  had  also  frequently  admitted,  when  the  Government 
asked  $350,000,  that  as  a  matter  of  common  honesty  the  Messrs. 
Williams  should  pay  the  amount  they  had  actually  saved  and  the 
Government  had  lost,  and  I  determined  to  make  an  effort  to  secure 
at  least  this  sum.  Accordingly  on  Mr.  Farwell's  return  I  stated  to 
him  my  determination  to  decline  a  settlement  for  less  than  the  Wil- 
liamses  had  actually  made  by  the  fraud,  including  the  interest.  I 
therefore,  when  Mr.  Way  called  at  the  Custom  House  the  next  morn- 
ing, presented  the  matter  to  him  in  this  way :  I  stated  that  he  had 
often  admitted  that  as  a  matter  of  common  honesty  the  Messrs.  Wil- 
liams should  pay  to  th^  Government  the  amount  it  had  actually  lost 
by  their  fraudulent  undervaluation  of  the  wines.  He  replied,  "  Yes, 
and  I  say  so  now."     I  then  proposed  that  he  and  Iklr.  Farwell  should 


14 

ascertain  the  amount  of  duty  that  had  been  withheld  on  all  the  impor- 
tations siuce«l846,  and  offered  to  take  the  responsibility  of  discharg- 
ing the  claim  upon  the  payment  of  that  amount,  whatever  it  might  be, 
with  the  interest.  His  reply  to  this  was  that  he  and  Mr.  Farwell 
would  not  agree,  and  at  once  began  to  show  him,  or  try  to,  that  they 
could  not.  I  answered  that  if  they  took  up  each  importation  and 
compared  the  amount  in  the  entry  and  false  invoice  at  the  Custom 
House  with  the  actual  value  and  the  amount  actually  remitted  Mr. 
Roederer  by  the  Messrs.  "Williams,  as  shown  by  their  own  books,  — 
and  it  was  all  so  shown,  —  I  did  not  see  how  they  could  fail  to  come 
to  substantially  the  same  result.  He  responded,  "  We  sha'n't  agree, 
we  sha'n't  agree."  I  repeated  that  I  did  not  see  why,  as  it  was  sim- 
ply a  matter  of  computation ;  that  the  loss  to  the  Government  in  du- 
ties ascertained  on  one  importation,  would  furnish  the  rule  or  rate  on 
the  aggregate  amount,  as  the  price  paid  was  the  same,  and  the  under- 
valuation in  the  false  invoices  was  the  same  through  the  whole  period. 
"  No,"  said  Mr.  Way,  "  we  sha'n't  agree  upon  the  principle ;  "  and 
began  again  with  great  earnestness,  I  might  almost  say  an  excited  or 
nervous  earnestness,  to  point  out  to  Mr.  Farwell  wherein  they  should 
differ,  and  added  that  Mr.  Hardy  would  agree  that  his  mode  of  ascer- 
taining the  amount  of  duties  withheld  was  coi'rect.  "  Very  well,"  said 
I,  "  I  am  willing  if  j'^ou  and  Mr.  Farwell  cannot  agree,  that  Mr.  Hardy 
should  decide  which  is  right,  and  will  settle  upon  the  payment  of  the 
amount  thus  ascertained."  Mr.  Way,  not  liking  this  proposition,  re- 
plied as  before,  "  We  sha'n't  agree,  I  know  we  sha'n't,  and  there  is  no 
use  in  trying,"  continuing  his  efforts  at  the  same  time  to  convince 
Mr.  Farwell  that  they  should  certainly  differ.  The  discussion  —  at 
times  quite  earnest  —  run  on  in  this  way  for  a  long  time,  Mr.  Way 
admitting  that  the  Messrs.  Williams  ought  at  least  to  restore  all  they 
had  taken  from  the  Government,  but  declining  my  proposition  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  he  and  Mr.  Farwell  and  Mr.  Hardy  could  not 
agree  as  to  the  amount.  He  finally  said  the  sum  would  be  less  than 
$100,000.  "  Very  well,"  said  I,  "  then  I  will  settle  for  less  than  $100,- 
000,"  and  insisted  that  they  ought  at  least  to  try,  but  he  refused  even  to 
try.  Whereupon  I  decided  —  and  it  was  then  my  fixed  purpose  — 
that  I  would  not  receive  the  $100,000  and  discharge  the  claim,  and  so 
stated  to  Mr.  Way,  who  then  retired,  and,  as  I  supposed,  reported  my 
decision  and  proposition  to  the  Messrs.  Williams.  It  should  be  stated 
that  Mr.  Way  had  learned  the  decision  of  the  Department  through 
Mr.  Farwell  before  I  had  presented  this  proposition. 

Mr.  Tuck  and  Mr.  Farwell  disapproved  decidedly  of  my  action, 
and  remonstrated  with  me  earnestly  against  it,  claiming  that  the  letter 
of  the  Solicitor  contained  not  only  the  authority  of  the  Secretary,  but 
liis  positive  instructions,  which  it  was  my  duty  to  carry  out.  I  re- 
plied by  repeating  what  I  had  before  said  in  substance,  that  the 
$100,000  was  not  half  the  amount  that  had  actually  been  made  out  of 
the  Government  by  the  fraud,  and  that  a  settlement  for  that  sum 
would  operate  as  a  bounty  and  encouragement  to  fraud,  rather  than 
tend  to  check  or  prevent  it.  I  insisted  that  while  small  offenders  are 
held  to  the  full  penalties  of  the  law,  a  great  fraud  like  this,  so  delib- 
erately and  carefully  contrived  and  entered  upon,  and  so  systemati- 
cally and  successfully  practised  for  nineteen  years,  by  parties  who 
had  evidently  counted  on  theu*  reputation  and  standing  to  lift  them 


15 

above  suspicion,  and  thereby  enable  them  to  do  unsuspected  what 
otherwise  they  probably  could  not  have  done, — when  pressed  by 
Roederer  to  allow  the  price  to  be  raised  for  their  own  safety,  after 
seizures  had  been  made  in  other  places,  it  was  with  apparent  reluc- 
tance they  consented  to  an  advance  of  two  francs,  adding,  "  We  think 
we  should  have  had  no  difficulty  with  the  old  way  of  invoicing ;  "  —  I 
say,  I  insisted  that  such  a  fraud,  so  successfully  inaugurated  and 
executed  during  so  long  a  period  by  such  parties,  ought  not  to  be  so 
settled  that  the  perpetrators  of  it  could  say  that  it  had  after  all  been 
a  source  of  great  profit  to  them.  ^  Rather  than  settle  thfe  case  with 
such  a  result  I  much  prefen-ed  to  report  it  to-  the  District  Attorney 
in  the  usual  way  for  judicial  investigation  and  determination.  This 
course,  I  think,  and  have  ever  thought,  would  have  been  the  best  for 
the  Government.  But  Mr.  Tuck  and  Mr.  Farwell  again  urged  their 
views  upon  me.  They  insisted  that  the  matter  had  been  referred  to 
the  Secretary  with  the  understanding  that  his  decision  should  be  accept- 
ed as  final;  that  it  was  my  duty  to  comply  with  his  instructions ; 
that  they  believed  it  would  be  better  for  the  Government  in  the  end 
to  settle  in  this  way  rather  than  take  the  hazards  and  delay  of  a 
prosecution,  and  I  finally  very  reluctantly  concluded  that  under  the 
instructions  of  the  Secretary  and  all  the  circumstances,  it  might  be 
my  duty  to  receive  the  $100,000  and  discharge  the  claim,  and  did  so. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  discharge :  — 

"  Custom  House,  Boston, 
"CoUector's  Office,  May  8,  1865. 
"  $100,000. 

"  Received  of  J.  D.  &  M.  'Williams  and  Edward  Codman  &  Co.,  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  in  full  satisfaction  of  all  claims  which  the  United  States  may 
have  for  duties,  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  arising  out  of  the  importation 
of  Champagne  wines  and  other  merchandise  up  to  this  date,  or  incurred  by 
reason  of  frauds  therein,  or  other  improper  conduct  in  relation  thereto,  or  out 
of  the  acts  of  any  and  all  the  parties  therein  interested.  All  books  and  papers 
of  J.  D.  &  M.  Williams  to  be  given  up. 

(Signed)  J.  Z.  GOODRICH,  Collector." 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  for  a  moment  that  it  is  any  part  of  my  pur- 
pose in  the  foregoing  statement,  to  contrast  what  I  did  with  what 
Mr.  Tuck  did.  We  diflfered  very  decidedly  and  widely  in  opinion, 
but  I  never  had  a  particle  of  doubt  of  his  incorruptible  integrity  as  a 
man  and  officer.  My  sole  purpose  is  to  present  as  accurately  as 
possible  the  part  I  took  in  the  transaction,  which  I  cannot  do  with- 
out referring  to  matters  in  regard  to  which  we  differed.  Charged,  as 
I  have  been,  as  the  responsible  officer  in  ferreting  out  this  great  fraud 
and  settling  with  the  perpetrators  of  it,  with  having  received  large 
sums  of  money  which  I  have  not  accounted  for,  it  is  my  right  not 
only,  but  my  duty  to  myself  and  friends,  to  state  to  the  public  pre- 
cisely what  I  did.     This  I  have  done.* 

*  At  the  request  of  Mr.  Tuck,  to  place  him  right  before  the  public,mpon  a 
matter  which,  between  us,  was  always  right,  I  have  consented  to  insert  the 
following  note  from  him :  — 

U.  S.  Hotel,  April  19th,  1866. 
Hon.  J.  Z.  Goodrich  : 

Dear  Sir,  —  I  notice  in  reading  my  letter  of  the  19th  of  March,  that  my 
using  the  words,  "  by  Mr.  Goodrich  or  any  one  else,"  in  that  clause  where  I 
disclaim  knowledge  of  the  payment  of  an  amount  above  a  certain  sum  named. 


16 

THE   SECRETARY'S    CONFIDENTIAL    CORRESPONDENCE 
WITH  THE  MESSRS.  WILLIAMS. 

Before  the  confidential  letter  of  the  Secretary  to  the  Messrs.  Wil- 
liams, on  the  5th  of  June,  had  he  heard  anything  unfavorable  to  my 
conduct  in  this  matter  ?  If  he  had,  from  whom  had  he  heard  it  ? 
Mr.  Hooper  says  he  had  seen  my  letters,  —  seen  them  at  the  Depart- 
ment, of  course.  I  assume  that  this  was  before  the  Secretary's  note 
to  the  Messrs.  Williams  ;  and  that  whatever  he  had  heard  unfavorable 
to  me,  if  anything,  he  learned  from  Mr.  Hooper. 

If  the  Secretary  had  ,not  learned  anything  unfavorable  to  me,  is  it 
not  somewhat  singular  that  he  should  have  opened  a  confidential 
coiTespondenee  with  the  Messrs.  Williams,  who  had  been,  as  he  knew, 
regularly  and  systematically  defrauding  the  Government  for  nineteen 
years,  without  communicating  at  all  with  the  Collector  who  had  been 
doing  all  in  his  power  to  expose  and  stop  the  fraud  ?  It  is  not  usual 
to  make  confidants  .of  merchants  who  have  just  been  detected  in 
gigantic  frauds,  rather  than  Collectors  against  whom  there  are  no 
suspicions.  But  as  the  Secretary  did  not  confer  with  me  on  the  sub- 
ject then,  and  has  not  at  any  time  since,  I  infer  that  somebody  had 
poisoned  his  mind.  I  cannot  learn  what  he  wrote  the  Messrs.  Wil- 
liams, nor  what  they  wrote  in  reply.  They  say  the  correspondence 
related  to  the  money  paid  in  this  settlement,  but  that  it  was  confiden- 
tial. It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  it  contains  something  not  in  their 
testimony,  as  otherwise  they  would  have  produced  it. 

THE  INVESTIGATION. 

Why  was  it  not  ordered  hefore  instead  of  after  my  removal  ?  The 
Secretary  had  been  for  thi-ee  months  before  in  confidential  corre- 
spondence with  the  Messrs.  Williams  in  regard  to  the  "  $32,000  un- 
accounted for."  Immediately  after  removal  he  directs  the  District 
Attorney  to  inquire  into  the  matter  before  the  Grand  Jury.  But 
nothing  was  said  to  me  about  it.  Why  not?  Was  I  suspected? 
Why,  and  upon  what  evidence?  If  not  suspected,  why  has  not  the 
Secretary  relieved  me  from  suspicion  long  ago,  instead  of  allowing  it 
to  be  confirmed  by  what  every  now  and  then  comes  over  the  wires 
from  his  own  Department  ?  When  the  District  Attorney  called  me  I 
went  before  the  Grand  Jury  and  told  how  much  money  I  had  received 

a  casual  reader  might  infer  that  I  thought  it  possible  a  larger  sum  was  receiv- 
ed by  you.  I  should  accuse  myself  more  severely  for  using  language  capable 
of  such  a  construction,  if  the  possible  inference  from  the  words  used  had  not 
escaped  your  notice  as  well  as  my  own,  when  I  read  my  letter  to  you  before 
publication.  I  had  two  objects  in  view  in  that  clause  of  my  letter,  —  one  to 
make  my  denial  entirely  comprehensive ;  and  the  other  to  avoid  trespassing 
upon  your  defence,  officiously  vindicating  you,  in  Massachusetts,  on  your  own 
ground,  among  your  own  friends,  when  I  knew  you  were  about  attending  to 
that  matter  yourself.  Had  I  not  known  your  means  of  defence  and  your  pur- 
pose to  ise  them,  I  should  have  made  my  assertions  so  broad  as  to  have  cov- 
ered your  acts  as  well  as  my  own,  touching  the  Williams  settlement.  I  should 
have  thought  it  proper,  also,  to  have  stated  my  own  k^iowledge  of  your  faith- 
mi  course  toward  the  Government  on  all  occasions,  and  your  incapability  of 
any  act  unworthy  of  a  most  generous,  patriotic,  and  honored  citizen. 
I  am,  with  the  greatest  esteem, 

Yours,  AMOS  TUCK. 


IT 

and  what  I  had  done  with  it.  His  report,  not  made  a  few  days  ago, 
will  present  the  truth  so  far  as  he  has  been  able  to  learn  it.  But  it 
must  go  to  the  Department,  and  I  have  no  reason  from  the  past  to 
suppose  it  will  be  furnished  to  me.  I  do  not  mean  by  this  to  com- 
plain of  the  Secretary.  He  doubtless  has  reasons  quite  satisfactory 
to  himself  for  the  course  he  has  pursued. 

* 
THE  THIRTY-TWO  THOUSAND  DOLLARS. 

Moses  B.  Williams  testifies  that  besides  the  $125,224  paid  to  the 
Government,  $32,000  was  paid  to  Mr.  Way,  but  "not  a  particle" 
was  to  be  paid  to  him  as  compensation  for  his  services.  Conse- 
quently it  was  all  paid  for  the  purpose  of  being  used  —  it  is  not 
now  pretended  to  the  contrary,  I  suppose  —  wherever  and  with 
whomsoever  it  would  accomplish  most  in  promoting  favorable  dispo- 
sitions and  securing  effective  aid  and  influence  in  moderating  the  de- 
mands of  the  Government.  In  other  words,  it  was  paid  to  "  grease 
the  wheels."  I  had  not  the  slightest  suspicion  at  the  time  that  money 
was  used,  nor  did  it  once  occur  to  me  that  it  could  be  had  for  any 
such  purpose.  And  I  take  great  pleasure  in  being  able  to  say  that  I 
have  no  belief  whatever  that  one  cent  of  this  $32,000  was  paid  to  any 
officer  connected  with  the  Boston  Custom  House,  including  Mr. 
French,  who  was  acting  as  Special  Deputy  in  this  and  a  few  other 
cases  which  arose  before  he  resigned  as  one  of  the  regular  Deputies, 
the  first  of  April.  I  have  the  satisfaction  of  feeling  that  it  was  not 
deemed  best  to  suggest  to  me  that  money  could  be  had,  if  desired  ;  at 
any  rate,  the  suggestion  was  not  made.  And  I  am  very  sure,  if  I  had 
had  the  least  suspicion  that  such  means  had  been  used  to  compass  a 
settlement  on  easier  terms,  I  should  never  have  signed  a  receipt  dis- 
charging the  claim. 

One  word  more  in  this  connection.  Assailed  as  I  have  been, 
wickedly  and  cruelly  stabbed  in  the  dark,  as  I  have  been,  I  may  be 
allowed  to  affirm,  as  I  do  explicitly  and  positively,  that  I  performed 
faithfully  the  onerous  and  responsible  duty  which  was  thrust  upon 
me  by  the  discovery  of  this  fraud.  Others  might  have  performed  it 
better,  but  no  one  could  have  tried  harder  to  discharge  his  whole  duty 
to  the  Government  and  the  public,  than  I  did  to  the  extent  of  my 
ability  and  according  to  my  best  judgment. 

3 


18 


CHENERY  &  CO.  ANT>   DIX  CASE,  AWD 
MR.  HOOPER'S  REPORT. 

It  is  due  to  the  public,  if  not  to  myself,  that  I  explain  another  gross 
fraud,  and  the  means  by  which  men  high  in  military  and  civil  position 
have  sought  to  justify  it  and  the  parties  to  it  at  the  Department.  The 
Williams  fraud  was  greater  in  amount,  but  the  means  employed  were 
no  worse.  Let  everyone  read  the  following  statement,  and  judge  for 
himself :  — 

FACTS. 

On  the  24th  of  July,  1862,  Messrs.  Chenery  &  Co.  imported  a  car- 
go of  rum,  sugar,  and  molasses,  and  on  the  same  day  made  a  ware- 
house entry  of  the  whole  cargo.  The  Inspector,  who  superintended 
the  unlading,  delivered  it  all  to  the  Storekeeper  for  warehousing  on 
the  25th,  and  took  warehouse  receipts.  The  following  is  a  copy  of 
the  receipt  for  the  sugar,  excepting  the  marks  and  numbers  :  — 

"Boston,  July  25th,  1862. 
"  Received  in  warehouse  at  C.  H.  B.  [Custom  House  Block]  from  on  board 
brig  Wm.  Moore,  Klynn,  Master,  from  St.  Croix,  twenty-four  hhds.  aud  six 
bbls.  sugar,  marked  and  numbered  as  in  margin,  and  imported  by  Cheuery  & 
Co. 

"  Signed  by  the  Storekeeper." 

Another  receipt  in  the  same  form  was  given  for  the  molasses,  and 
a  third  for  the  rum.  The  rum  was  immediately  sent  to  United  States 
Bonded  Warehouse,  but  the  sugar  and  molasses,  at  the  request  of 
Chenery  &  Co.,  was  allowed  to  remain  on  the  wharf,  as  they  expected 
to  sell  it  the  next  day,  pay  the  duties  and  withdraw  it,  which*  they 
did.  It  was,  however,  in  the  custody  and  control  of  the  Government, 
represented  by  the  Storekeeper,  —  who  might  at  any  moment  have 
sent  it  to  the  store,  —  and  was  considered  as  constructively  ware- 
housed, according  to  the  well-known  custom  in  such  cases. 

On  the  26th,  the  Inspector  made  the  usual  return  at  the  Custom 
House  that  the  vessel  had  been  discharged  and  the  cargo  "  warehoused 
or  stored  on  the  25th,"  and  left  with  his  return  the  Storekeeper's  ware- 
house receipts. 

On  the  same  day  the  Storekeeper  made  his  return,  which  was  on 
the  back  of  the  order  to  receive  the  cargo  into  store,  and  was  in  these 
words  :  —  "  The  merchandise  permitted  within  was  received  into  store 
on  the  2oth  day  of  July,  1862." 

On  the  same  day  also,  July  26th,  Chenery  &  Co.  paid  the  duty  on 
the  sugar  and  molasses,  having  sold  it  as  expected,  and  withdrew  it 
"  from  warehouse,"  and  received  the  usual  order  or  permit  to  the 
Storekeeper  to  deliver  it.  This  was  Saturday,  and  it  suited  their 
convenience  to  hold  the  order  till  Monday,  the  28th,  when  they  pre- 
sented it  and  received  the  goods.  The  Storekeeper  then  returned  the 
order  to  the  Custom  House,  and  indorsed  on  it,  "  Delivered  out  July 
28th,  1862." 

The  rum  remained  in  bonded  warehouse  till  the  28th  of  October.  . 


19 

which  was  three  months  and  four  days  after  it  was  imported.  Chenery 
&  Co.  then  applied  to  Mr.  Payne,  Warehouse  Book-keeper,  to  with- 
draw it,  who  informed  them  that  as  more  than  three  months  had 
elapsed  since  it  was  imported,  it  was  subject  to  double  duty.  To  this 
they  objected,  and  presented  the  question  to  Mr.  Timothy  B.  Dix, 
principal  Storage  Clerk,  who  stated  that  as  it  appeared  from  the  re- 
turn of  the  Storekeeper  that  it  had  been  in  warehouse  more  three 
months,  it  could  not  be  withdrawn  without  paying  double  duty,  or  an 
additional  duly  of  fifty-nine  cents  a  gallon.  The  time  of  warehoua- 
ing  was  no  otherwise  important  than  the  conclusive  evidence  it  fur- 
nished that  the  rum  had  been  imported  more  than  three  months,  the 
law  being  that  it  was  subject  to  double  duty  if  not  withdrawn  within 
three  months  from  importation.  How  to  get  over  this  evidence  and 
that  furnished  by  Chenery  &  Co.'s  oath,  made  on  the  original  entry, 
that  it  was  imported  on  the  24th  of  July,  was  the  question.  They 
went  to  the  warehouse  and  endea;vored  to  persuade  the  Storekeeper 
that  it  was  not  wai*ehoused  till  the  28th  of  July,  and  that  his  return 
was  wrong.  But  the  Storekeeper,  after  examining  his  books,  was 
satisfied  he  received  the  rum  into  warehouse  on  the  25th  of  July,  and 
that  his  return  was  right.  They  then  requested  him  to  go  to  the 
Custom  House  and  confer  with  Payne  and  Dix,  two  old  and  experi- 
enced clerks,  and  see  if  it  could  not  be  arranged  in  some  way,  which 
he  did.  He  first  saw  Payne,  who  went  with  him  to  Dix's  desk.  The 
Storekeeper  stated  to  Dix  and  Payne  that  he  received  the  rum,  sugar, 
and  molasses  on  the  25th  of  July,  and  delivered  the  sugar  and  mo- 
lasses out  to  Chenery  &  Co.  on  the  28th,  as  his  return  showed.  It 
has  never  been  pretended  that  he  made  a  different  statement,  alwaj^s 
afiu'ming  the  correctness  of  his  returns.  Mr.  Dix  then  said  that 
"upon  the  Storekeeper's  statement  of  the  facts,  in  accordance  with  the 
usual  practice  the  return  should  have  been  dated  the  28th  of  July  instead 
of  the  2Qth,  and  that  it  would  be  proper  to  alter  it"  _  Finally,  the 
Storlkeeper,  by  the  advice  and  direction  of  Mr.  Dix,  as  Mr.  Pajme 
and  the  Storekeeper  both  say,  altered  his  return,  which  was,  as  I  have 
said,  on  the  back  of  the  order  to  receive  into  warehouse.  As  origi- 
nally made  it  was  as  follows  :  — 

"  BOSTOX,  July  26th,  1862. 
"  The  raerchaudise  [which  included  the  rum,  sugar  and  molasses]  permit- 
ted within,  was  received  into  store  on  the  25th  day  of  July,  1862." 

As  altered,  it  was  as  follows :  — 

"  Boston,  July  28th,  1862. 
"  The  merchandise  permitted  within  was  received  into  store  on  the  25th  and 
28thday  of  July,  1862." 

The  alteration  consisted  in  inserting  in  the  hody  of  the  return  after 
the  figures  "  25  "  the  word  and  figures  "  and  28,"  and  by  making 
the  figure  "  6  "  in  the  date  into  "  8,"  so  that  the  date  would  be  28th 
instead  of  26th.  In  this  wa}^  the  time  of  the  deposit  or  warehous- 
ing of  the  rum,  treating  the  whole  as  one  transaction,  and  dating  from 
the  deposit  of  the  sugar  and  molasses,  thu,s  fixed  by  the  altered  return 
at  the  28th  of  July,  was  brought  within  three  months  from  the  28th 
of  October.  But  this  was  not  enough,  because,  while  the  28th  of  Oc- 
tober might  not  be  more  than  three  months  from  the  time  of  deposit 
in  warehouse,  it  might   be   more  than  that  from  the  time   of  im- 


20 

portation.  It  was  therefore  necessary,  under  the  law  existing  at  that 
time,  to  show  that  the  withdrawal  on  the  28th  of  October  would  not 
exceed  three  months  from  imjjortation.  This  was  done  by  allowing 
Chenery  &  Co.  to  state  in  their  withdrawal  entry  of  the  rum  on  the 
28th  of  October,  that  it  was  imported  on  the  28th  day  of  July,  and 
they  did  so  state,  although  in  the  original  entry  on  the  24th  of  July, 
they  had  sworn,  as  the  fact  toas,  that  it  was  imported  on  the  24th. 

Upon  this  altered  and  false  return  of  the  Storekeeper,  and  their  own 
false  statement  that  the  rum  was  imported  on  the  28th  of  July,  Che- 
nery &  Co.  were  allowed  to  pay  the  single  duty  of  fifty-nine  cents 
a  gallon  and  withdraw  it,  which  they  did.  The  additional  duty  was 
$2,993.66,  and  the  whole  purpose  was  to  relieve  them  from  the  pay- 
ment of  this  sum.  There  was  no  other  conceivable  motive  or  necessi- 
ty for  altering  the  return,  or  making  the  false  statement  as  to  the 
time  of  importation,  and  Chenery  &  Co.  and  Dix  were  obliged  to  ad- 
mit, and  did  admit,  that  such  was  the  purpose. 

A  letter  from  the  Commissioner  of  Customs,  dated  the  20th  of  the 
following  March  (1863),  inquiring  why  a  duty  of  one  hundred  and 
eighteen  cents  instead  of  fifty-nine  had  not  been  collected  on  the  rum, 
led  to  the  disclosure  of  the  foregoing  facts,  which  was  the  first  infor- 
mation I  or  either  of  my  Deputies  had  on  the  subject.  The  rum  still 
remained  in  warehouse  on  storage,  and  I  immediately  revoked  the 
order  to  deliver,  and  gave  directions  to  retain  it  till  the  additional 
duty  of  $2,993.64  was  paid,  and  payment  was  made  soon  after.  Mr. 
Dix  was  removed  (Payne  and  the  Storekeeper  resigned) ,  and  his  re- 
moval was  approved  by  the  Secretary  upon  a  report  of  the  facts,  with 
copies  of  all  the  papers'  relating  to  the  case.  His  brother.  General 
John  A.  Dix,  soon  after  appealed  to  the  Secretary  to  direct  that  he 
be  reinstated,  on  the  ground  that  injustice  had  been  done  him  by 
the  removal.  The  Secretary  (Mr.  Chase),  though  he  did  not  claim 
the  right  to  reinstate  after  having  approved  of  the  removal,  was  will- 
ing, as  a  friend  to  General  Dix,  to  inquire  again  and  thoroughly  into 
the  facts,  and  do  what  he  properly  might.  With  this  view,  he  wrote 
to  Mr.  Hooper  on  the  28th  of  July,  1863,  and  inclosed  all  the  papers 
which  I  had  forwarded,  and  asked  him  to  ascertain  all  the  facts  and 
report  them  with  his  opinion,  and  especially  to  report  whether  he 
agreed  with  the  Collector.  The  forepart  of  August  Mr.  Hooper 
called  on  me  at  the  Custom  House,  and  showed  me  his  letter  from  the 
Secretary.  I  at  once  made  a  full  explanation  of  all  the  facts  and  the 
views  I  entertained,  and  showed  him  the  Storekeeper's  warehouse  re- 
ceipts, dated  July  25th,  the  Inspector's  return,  dated  the  26th,  the 
entry  of  Chenery  &  Co.,  withdrawing  the  sugar  and  molasses,  on  the 
2Gth,  and  the  Storekeeper's  altered  return,  and  pointed  out  what  the 
alteration  was.  I  understood  him  to  express  opinions  which  agreed 
with  my  own ;  he  said  nothing  to  indicate  that  he  differed  from  me 
in  any  important  particular.  At  the  close  of  our  interview  he  said 
he  would  prepare  his  report  to  the '  Secretary,  and  show  it  to  me  be- 
fore forwarding  it.  My  recollection  of  this  is  clear  and  distinct,  and 
I  know  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in  regard  to  it. 

Thus  matters  remained  till  I  received  an  unolFicial  letter  from  Mr. 
Chase,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy :  — 


21 

"  Tre-^sury  Dep.vrt>ient,  February  12th>  1864. 
"  My  dear  Sir :  —  I  inclose  au  official  letter  which  speaks  for  itself.  Gen- 
eral DLx  feels  greatly  hurt  by  the  removal  of  his  brother,  and  wishes  that  I 
would  examine  the  matter  anew.  I  cannot  do  this,  and  do  justice  to  you  at 
the  same  time,  without  conferring  with  you  personally.  I  therefore  desire  to 
see  you  in  Washington.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  inconvenient  for  you  to  come. 
There  are  many  subjects  I  shall  be  glad  to  confer  with  you  about. 

"  Very  truly  yours,  S.  P.  CHASE. 

"  J.  Z.  Goodrich,  Esq.,  Boston,  Mass." 

I  went  to  Washington,  as  requested,  where  I  found,  among  the  pa- 
pers in  the  case,  Mr.  Hooper's  report.  This  was  the  first  intimation 
I  had  that  it  had  been  made.  It  was  dated  September  loth,  1863,  a 
short  time  after  his  interview  with  me  at  the  Custom  House.  It 
closed  with  the  statement  that  "  the  Collector  declined  to  confer  with 
me  (him)  on  the  subject"  which  I  pronounce  to  be  utterly  and  inex- 
cusably false.  Mr.  Hooper  knew  better.  Inclosed  with  his  report  I 
found  a  letter  to  him,  written,  as  the  report  states,  at  his  request, 
fi"om  R.  S.  S.  Andros,  Esq.,  dated  September  7th,  also  the  affidavit 
of  Mr.  Pa\'ne,  dated  August  22d,  and  of  Mr.  T.  B.  Dix,  dated  Septem- 
ber 7th,  1863.  I  also  found  a  letter  from  General  Dix  to  the  Secre- 
tary, dated  November  20,  1863,  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  ordering  of 
an  "  investigation,"  and  thus  referred  to  Mr.  Hooper's  report :  — 
"  The  Hon.  iSIr.  Hooper  has  made  his  report,  and  I  am  told  my 
brother  is  completely  vindicated.  I  now  ask,  as  an  act  of  justice, 
that  lie  may  be  placed  in  the  position  which  he  occupied  before  his 
unjust  removal  by  Mr.  Goodrich.  *  *  Mr.  Harrington  (Assistant 
Secretary)  assured  me  that  he  should  not  be  considered  out  of  place, 
and  that  the  result  of  the  investigation  should  be  decisive."  Perhaps 
Mr.  Hooper  had  received  the  same  assurance  from  Mr.  Harrington, 
which  ma}'  explain  why  he  forgot  to  show  me  his  report."  Its  con- 
clusions do  "•  completely  vindicate "  Mr.  Dix,  and  it  was  doubtless 
expected  Mr.  Chase  would  treat  it  as  decisive  without  explanation 
from  me.  But  he  thought  justice  to  me  required  a  personal  confer- 
ence, and  he  sought  one. 

Mr.  Chase  said  he  must  see  Mr.  Hooper  and  myself  together,  and 
proposed  to  meet  us  at  10  o'clock  the  next  morning  at  his  office.  We 
met  at  the  time  appointed.  Perhaps  two  hours  were  spent  in  verbal 
statements  by  Mr.  Hooper  in  explanation  and  vindication  of  his  re- 
port, and  in  replies  by  me  pointing  out  what  seemed  to  be  not  errors 
merely,  but  perversions  both  of  fact  and  law,  to  which  Mr.  Chase 
listened. 

MR.  HOOPER'S  REPORT. 

,  It  conclusively  shows  that  he  knew  the  cargo  was  all  warehoused 
on  or  before  the  26th  of  July.  It  says  :  —  "The  entry  and  order  to 
receive  into  warehouse,  was  for  rum,  sugar,  and  molasses ;  the  rum 
was  put  into  the  store  on  the  25th  July ;  the  next  day,  being  Saturday, 
the  26th  July,  Messrs.  Chenery  &  Co.  sold  the  sugar  and  molasses  at 
auction,  and  immediately  entered  it  out,  paid  the  duty,  and  received 
the  delivery  permit ;  which  permit  they  took  to  the  Storekeeper  on 
the  morning  of  the  next  business  day,  which  was  Monday,  the  28th 
July." 

If  the  next  business  day  after  they  received  the  permit  was  Mon- 
day the  28th,  of  course  they  received  it  Saturday  the  26th.      Mr. 


Hooper  admits,  then,  that  Chenery  &  Co.  paid  the  duties  on  the 
sugar  and  molasses,  and  "  entered  it  out"  of  warehouse,  or  withdrew 
it  from  warehouse,  on  Saturday  the  26th,  and  the  same  day  received 
a  permit  or  order  for  it,  as  was  the  fact.  Consequently  he  knew  it 
had  been  previously  warehoused,  as  otherwise  it  could  not  have  been 
withdrawn  from  warehouse.  And  he  states,  substantially,  the  same 
thing  in  another  passage,  as  follows :  — 

"  The  sugar  and  molassess,  after  having  been  entered  for  storage,  could  be 
obtained  for  delivery  to  the  purchasers,  only  by  entering  it  out,  .as  if  it  was 
actually  In  the  warehouse ;  for  this  purpose  only  is  it  considered  constructively 
in  the  warehouse  while  on  the  wharf." 

This  admits  it  was  constructively  in  the  warehouse  while  on  the 
wharf.  And  if  it  could  be  obtained  for  delivery  only  by  entering  it 
out,  and  conld  be  entered  out  only  when  constructively  (if  not  actu- 
ally) in  the  warehouse,  and  if  it  was  in  the  warehouse  for  this  pur- 
pose, as  Mr.  Hooper  says  it  w^as,  then  it  must  have  been  warehoused, 
as  he  must  have  known,  hefoue  it  was  "entered  out"  on  the  26th. 
Nothing  further  can  be  needed  on  this  point. 

And  the  evidence  of  the  facts  presented  to  Chenery  &  Co.,  Dix 
and  Paj'ne  at  the  time  the  rum  was  withdrawn  on  the  28th  of  Oc- 
tober, or  of  what  they  then  knew,  agrees  perfetly  with  this  admission 
of  Mr.  Hooper.     This  his  report  sufHcientlj-  shows.     It  says  :  — 

"  As  it  appears  by  the  Storekeeper's  return  "  (agreeing  exactly  with  t6e  In- 
spector's return),  "  that  the  deposit  in  the  warehouse  was  made  on  the  25th  Ju- 
ly, consequently  that  it  had  been  in  the  Warehouse  more  than  three  months, 
the  warehouse  Book-keeper,  Mr.  H.  A.  S.  D.  Payne,  decided  that  the  rum" 
(there  was  but  one  return,  showing  the  rum,  sugar,  and  molasses  were  depos- 
ited at  the  same  time),  "  was  subject  to  duty  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  and 
eighteen  cents  per  gallon  under  the  law  of  July  14th,  1862."  (They  knew,  it 
seems,  what  the  law  was).  *  *  "  On  referring  "  (Chenery  &  Co.  referred) 
*'  to  the  principal  Storage  Clerk,  Mr.  T.  B.  Dix,  he  stated  that  the  return  of  the 
Storekeeper  must  be  their  guide,  and  that  the  rum  could  not  be  withdrawn 
without  paying  the  duty  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  and  eighteen  cents  per 
gallon." 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  they  all  knew  the  goods  were  warehoused 
according  to  the  returns,  on  the  25th  of  July,  and  thej'  knew  the  with-  ' 
drawal  of  the  sugar  and  molasses  by  Chenery  &  Co.  the  next  day  — 
which  the  withdrawal  entry  in  the  Custom  House  showed  —  proved 
the  correctness  of  the  returns,  as  the  withdrawal  could  not  have  been 
made  if  the  warehousing  had  not  been  previously  made.  With  this 
proof  that  the  returns  were  correct,  —  proof  by  their  own  withdrawal 
entry,  —  Chenery  &  Co.  went  right  to  work  co  get  the  date  of  ware- 
housing altered. 

And  this  brings  me  to  another  part  of  Mr.  Hooper's  report,  made 
for  another  purpose  (which  will  appear  as  we  proceed),  in  which  he 
pretends,  and  upon  a  theory  quite  new,  attempts  to  show  that  the 
sugar  and  molasses  were  not  warehoused,  actually  or  constructively, 
till  the  28th  of  July.  Portions  of  this  part  of  his  report,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  quotations  already  made,  are  curiosities.  He 
says : — 

"  Messrs.  Chenery  &  Co.  claimed  that  the  return  was  erroneous,  as  the 
date  of  deposit  in  the  warehouse  was  the  28th  instead  of  the  25th  of  July,  *  * 
*  *  Messrs.  Chenery  &  Co.  went  to  the  public  warehouse,  and,  after  some 
couversation  with  the  Storekeeper  who  made  the  return,  in  regard  to  the  facts 


I 


23 

In  the  case,  requested  him  to  go  to  the  Custom  House  and  consult  the  pi'inci- 
pal  Clerk,  Mr.  T.  B.  Dix,  and  the  warehouse  Book-keeper,  Mr.  H.  A.  S.  D. 
Payne,  both  of  whom  had  more  experience  than  the  Storekeeper  in  regard  to 
what  had  been  the  usual  practice  in  relation  to  the  return  of  goods  deposited 
in  the  public  warehouse.  After  hearing  the  statement  of  the  Storekeeper  " 
(which  was  that  the  goods  were  all  warehoused  on  the  2oth  July,  —  it  has 
never  been  pretended  that  he  ever  made  a  different  statement),  "  Mr.  Dix  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  upon  his  statement  of  the  facts,  in  accordance  with  the 
usual  practice,  the  return  should  have  been  dated  the  28th  of  July  instead  of  the 
2Gth  ;  also,  that  it  would  be  right  for  the  Storekeeper  to  alter  his  return  so  as  to 
make  it  conform  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  The  Storekeeper  then  changed  the  re- 
turn by  altering  the  date  from  the  26th  to  the  28th  July,  and  in  the  body  of  the 
return  so  that  instead  of  stating  the  deposit  in  warehouse  to  be  on  the  25th 
July,  it  was  stated  to  have  been  received  on  the  25th  and  28th  July ;  thereby 
naming  the  first  and  last  days,  as  had  been  customary  in  such  returns,  viz', 
the  date  of  the  receipt  of  the  first  package  in  warehouse  as  the  first,  and  for 
the  other  the  last  day  on  which  any  of  the  goods  were  received  in  the  ware- 
house. Messrs.  Chenery  &  Co.  entered  the  rum  on  the  28th  of  October  after 
this  correction  of  the  return  had  been  made,  and  paid  the  duty  at  the  rate  of 
fifty-nine  cents  a  gallon." 

More  uncandid  or  groundless  assumptions  than  these  were  never 
made.  The  Storekeeper's  return  was  not  altered  to  correct  it ;  no- 
body concerned  in  the  transaction  could  have  supposed  it  was.  And 
Mr.  Hooper  must  have  known  it  confonned  exactly  to  the  facts  in  the 
case.  At  any  rate,  he  knew  that  the  sugar  and  molasses  were  with- 
drawn on  the  26th,  and  that  they  had  been  warehoused  before  they 
were  withdrawn.  And  he  knew  the  rum  was  warehoused  on  the  25th, 
for  he  so  states.  Nor  was  the  cargo  warehoused  on  different  days,  as 
assumed.  Mr.  Hooper  knew  it  was  all  warehoused,  if  ever,  on  the 
same  day.  This  not  only  the  Storekeeper's  return,  but  the  Inspec- 
tor's return  showed,  both  of  which  were  in  his  hands,  or  copies.  The 
report  proceeds :  — 

"  To  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion  ft*om  the  statement  of  the  facts  presented 
in  this  case,  the  first  question  to  be  considei'ed  is  whether  the  28th  of  July 
was  the  true  date  that  should  have  been  originally  returned ;  and  secondly,  if 
it  was  the  true  date,  whether  it  was  proper  to  make  the  alteration  in  the  re- 
turn. In  answering  these  questions  it  seems  to  me  that  the  usual  practice  of 
the  Boston  Custom  House  should  be  considered,  and  not  what  was  abstractly 
the  most  correct  and  judicious  action  in  regard  to  such  returns." 

But  how  does  he  attempt  to  prove  that  the  28th  was  the  true  date 
that  should  have  been  returned  as  the  date  of  deposit  in  warehouse  ? 
In  this  way,  in  his  own  words  :  — 

"  "When,  after  having  been  entered  for  warehousing,  any  portion  of  the 
goods  specified  in  the  entry  is  entered  out  before  it  h^s  been  sent  to  the  ware- 
house, as  was  the  case  in  this  transaction  of  Chenery  &  .Co.,  the  time  when  the 
delivery  permit  is  received  by  the  Storekeeper,  is  considered  the  final  date  of  de- 
posit" (in  warehouse). 

This  means  that  when  the  duties  are  paid  on  part  of  a  lot  of  goods 
entered  for  warehousing,  and  it  is  withdrawn  while  it  remains  in  the 
possession  of  the  Storekeeper  on  the  wharf  before  being  actually  sent 
to  the  warehouse,  and  the  owners  have  received  an  order  for  it,  the 
time  when  this  order  or  delivery  permit  is  presented  to  the  Store- 
keeper is  to  be  considered  the  time  of  final  deposit  in  warehouse, 
whether  one,  two,  ten,  thirty  days  or  months  after  the  withdi'awal 
entry  or  pajTuent  of  the  duties  (in  this  case  two  days  after).  Iji  other 


•24 

words,  the  time  of  actual  delivery  out,  or  the  time  the  Storekeeper 
"  receives  "  from  the  owners  the  order  to  deliver  out,  is  the  time  of 
final  deposit  in  warehouse.  Can  anything  be  more  absurd  ?  There 
is  no  connection  whatever  betwee;i  the  two  transactions.  The  order 
to  receive  is  before  the  duties  are  paid.  The  order,  to  deliver  is  after 
the  duties  are  paid.  They  are  signed  by  different  officers  and  issued 
from  different  departments.  Moreever,  the  order  to  receive  into 
warehouse  must  first  be  executed  before  the  order  to  deliver  can  be 
regularly  issued.  How,  then,  can  anybody  but  feel  surprised  that  a 
man  of  Mr.  Hooper's  intelligence,  who  has  been  so  many  years  en- 
gaged in  the  importing  business,  and  so  long  familiar  with  the.  mode 
of  passing  goods  through  the  Custom  House,  should  make  such  a 
statement  as  this.  That  it  is  wholly  unfounded,  cannot  admit  of  a 
doubt. 

Besides,  the  time  when  goods  are  legally  withdi-awn  is,  not 
when  the  owners  receive  them  from  the  Avarehouse,  or  present  an* 
order  for  them,  but  when  the  duties  are  paid  on  the  withdrawal  enti^. 
Secretary  Chase,  doubtless,  surprised  at  Mr.  Hooper's  pretence  of  any 
such  custom  as  he  talked  about,  inquired  of  the  Collector  of  New  York 
when  goods  are  withdrawn  from  warehouse,  who  replied  under  date 
of  February  2d,  1864,  as  follows :  — 

"  I  regard  t]iQ  payment  of  the  duties  on  the  withdrawal  entry,  as  the  actual  act 
of  withdrawal  from  warehouse,  no  matter  when  thereafter  the  order  was  present- 
ed to  the  Storekeeper." 

From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  must  be  so.  What  has  the  Govern- 
ment to  do  with  imported  merchandise  after  the  duties  are  p^id? 
Nothing,  of  course.  Manifestly  they  should  not  be  warehoused,  act- 
ually or  constructively,  after  that,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  prac- 
tice, well  known  to  all  importers,  they  are  not.  And  yet  Mr.  Hooper 
tells  the  Secretary  that  according  to  the  custom  or  "  usual  practice" 
of  the  Boston  Custom  House,  they  are. 

The  position  of  Mr.  Hooper  that  an  importer  may  keep  his  order 
for  withdrawn  and  duty  paid  goods  in  his  pocket  till  it  suits  his  con- 
venience to  present  it,  with  the  understanding  that  the  time  of  pre- 
senting it  will  fix  the  date  of  warehousing  goods  not  withdrawn  and 
duties  not  paid,  and  extend  the  time  within  which  they  may  be  with- 
di'awn  without  additional  duty  (as  in  this  case  on  the  rum  from  the 
25th  to  the  28th),  is  simply  preposterous,  and  it  would  be  an  im- 
peachment of  his  intelligence  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  he  does 
not  know  it  is. 

But  he  tries  still  further  to  justify  this  position  by  saying  that  the 
Storekeeper  ''  could  not  properly  return  on  the  26th  July  that  he  had 
received  the  rum,  sugar  and  molasses  into  the  warehouse."  Not 
proper  to  make  the  return  on  the  26th !  How  is  it  possible  Mr. 
Hooper  can  justify  such  a  statement?  It  was  not  only  proper  the 
return  should  be  made  when  it  was,  but  it  was  necessary  to  enable 
Chenery  &  Co.  to  withdraw  the  sugar  and  molasses  on  the  26th.  If 
there  had  been  no  return,  there  would  have  been  no  evidence  at  the 
Custom  House  that  the  sugar  and  molasses  had  been  warehoused.  But 
the  return  had  been  made.  The  Storekeeper's  return  stated  that  the 
goods  had  been  "  received  into  store  on  the  25th."  The  Inspector's 
return  stated  that  they  had  been  "  warehoused  or  stored  on  the  25th.'» 


25 

This  was  the  required  evidence  to  the  Collector  thht  the  goods  were 
*'  in  the  warehouse "  and  might  be  withdrawn.  The  Storekeeper's 
return,  therefore,  was  properly  made  before  they  were  withdrawn 
and  the  delivery  permit  issued.  Can  it  be  that  Mr.  Hooper,  an  old 
importer,  could  be  ignorant  of  this  ?  And  it  was  undoubtedly  made 
early  in  the  day  for  the  very  purpose  of  enabling  Chenery  &  Co.,  after 
the  auction  sale,  to  make  the  withdrawal  entry  and  get  the  delivery 
permit,  and  it  being  properly  made,  it  was  of  course  properly  dated 
the  26th,  when  made.  Nothing  can  show  more  clearlj'^  than  this  < 
simple  statement  of  the  regular  and  necessary  order  of  proceeding, 
the  iniquity  of  the  pretence  that  the  goods  were  not  warehoused  till 
the  28th. 

And  Mr.  Hooper  even  goes  so  far,  in  this  part  of  his  report,  as  to 
say  that  "  the  Storekeeper  had  no  control  over  the  sugar  and  molas- 
ses on  the  wharf."  His  own  words,  already  quoted,  are  a  sufficient 
answer  to  this.  He  saj's,  "  the  sugar  and  molasses,  after  having 
been  entered  for  storage,  could  be  obtained  for  delivery  to  the  pur- 
chasers only  by  entering  it  out."  Why  not,  if  the  Storeheeper  had  no 
control  over  it?  Why  might  not  Chenery  &  Co.,  if  this  was  so,  have 
taken  it  without  paying  duty  and  without  a  permit  ?  Could  this  be 
done  ?  Of  course  it  could  not.  The  Storekeeper  might  at  any  mo- 
ment, as  Mr.  Hooper  ought  to  have  known,  have  sent  the  sugar  and 
molasses  to  the  store.  Suppose  Chenery  &  Co.  had  changed  their 
minds,  and  decided  not  to  sell,  pay  the  duties,  and  withdraw  from 
warehoiise  for  two  months,  can  it  be  pretended  that  the  Storekeeper 
could  not  have  controlled  it  and  put  it  into  store  ?  He  not  only  might 
have  done  this,  but  it  would  have  been  his  duty  to  do  it. 

TIMOTHY  B.  DIX. 

Mr.  Hooper  represents  Mr.  Dix  as  sajing  that  "  upon  the  Store- 
keeper's statement  of  the  facts,  in  accordance  with  the  usual  practice, 
the  retui-n  should  have  been  dated  the  28th  of  July  instead  of  the  26th, 
and  that  it  would  be  proper  to  alter  it." 

He  said  this  and  more.  He  directed  the  alteration.  But  it  was 
wholl}^  immaterial,  so  far  as  Mr.  Dix  was  concerned,  what  the  Store- 
keeper stated.  He  knew  the  facts  as  well  as  anybody  could  tell  him. 
He  had  been  in  the  Custom  House,  and  in  that  very  office,  seventeen 
years,  and  was  perfectly  familiar  with  every  paper.  He  knew  the 
deposit  and  Storekeeper's  return  were  properly  and  regularly  made 
before  Chenery  &  Co.  withdrew  the  sugar  and  molasses,  and  there- 
fore that  the  return  could  not  properly  be  dated  two  days  after  the 
withdrawal.  He  must  have  known  there  was  no  such  usual  practice 
as  he  spoke  of,  and  never  had  been.  He  knew,  or  ought  to  have 
known,  that  the  Storekeeper's  return,  if  altered,  would  contradict  the 
Inspector's  return,  and  would  be  incorrect  as  soon  as  altered,  and  j^et  he 
directed  the  alteration  to  be  made  on  purpose  to  aid  in  carrying  out 
the  plan  devised  to  give  Chenery  &  Co.  their  rum  by  paj'ing  half  the 
lawful  duty.  Mr.  Dix  knew  the  importation  was  made  the  24th  of 
July,  because  he  himself  issued  the  order  that  very  day,  after  entry 
and  importation,  to  the  Storekeeper  to  receive  the  cargo,  which  order 
was  before  him  when  the  alteration  in  the  return  was  made.  In  a 
word,  there  was  not  a  material  fact  that  he  did  not  know  perfectly. 
In  his  affidavit  there  is  not  a  word  which  relates  to  the  question. 


% 


26 

R.  S.  S.  ANDROS'S  LETTER. 

In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Hooper,  it  appears  that  Mr.  Andros  understood 
the  facts.  He  then  says  :  —  "I  entertain  no  doubt  that,  under  the 
practice,  the  28th  was  the  proper  date  of  deposit."  And  I  entertain 
no  doubt  that  he  ought  to  be  heartily  ashamed  of  having  expressed 
such  an  opinion.  A  man  who  had  been  as  familiar  with  Custom 
House  matters  as  he  had,  ought  to  have  known  better. 

CHENERY  &  CO.'S  LETTER. 

The  official  letter  inclosed  in  the  Secretary's  unofficial  note  of  the 
12th  of  February,  was  Chenery  &  Co.'s,  dated  December  31,  1863. 
It  was  a  request  to  the  Secretary  to  order  a  refund  of  the  additional 
duty,  for  reasons  stated.     The  following  are  extracts  from  it :  — 

"  We  respectfully  represeut  that  on  the  24th  of  July,  1862,  we  imported  into 
this  District  a  cargo  of  merchandise  *  *  and  entered  the  whole  cargo  for 
warehousing  in  one  entry.  Said  cargo,  according  to  the  offlcei-'s  return,  and 
in  accordance  loith  the  facts  in  the  case,  was  deposited  in  warehouse  from  the 
25th  to  the  28th  of  July,  1862.  The  whole  of  the  merchandise  was  immediately 
withdrawn /rom  warehouse,  excepting  an  invoice  of  forty-eight  puncheons  of 
rum." 

These  are  extraordinary  statements,  and  wholly  at  variance  with 
the  known  facts  in  the  case.  That  the  rum  was  deposited  in  ware- 
house on  the  25th  there  is  no  dispute.  When,  therefore,  they  assert 
that  according  to  the  facts  in  the  case  the  cargo  was  deposited  in 
warehouse  from  the  25th  to  the  28th,  they  mean  to  say  that  according 
to  the  facts  the  sugar  and  molasses  were  deposited  on  the  28th.  And 
yet  they  themselves  withdrew  the  "  whole"  of  it  from  werehouse  on 
the  26th  of  July,  having  paid  the  duties  on  it,  which,  of  course,  they 
knew.  They  certainly  had  the  means  of  knowing  it.  They  could 
have  ascertained  from  their  own  books  that  they  paid  the  duty  on  the 
26th ;  and  the  date  of  their  withdi-awal  entr}^,  which  was  in  the  Cus- 
tom House,  would  have  shown  at  any  time  that  that  also  was  made 
on  the  26th.  And  on  the  same  day  they  received  the  order  for  the 
goods,  and  they  knew  they,  presented  it  to  the  Storekeeper  on  the 
28th  and  took  them  out  of  warehouse,  and  did  not  put  them  into  ware- 
house. The  question  of  time  being  the  very  question  to  settle,  it  is 
not  a  supposable  case  that  when  they  proposed  to  withdraw  the  rum 
on  the  28th  of  October,  they  could  have  forgotten  to  ascertain  when 
they  paid  the  duty,  made  their  withdrawal  entry,  and  received  the  de- 
livery permit. 

Chenery  &  Co.  are  especially  inexcusable  in  persisting  in  represen- 
tations so  palpably  false,  eight  months  after  the  discovery  of  the 
fraud,  and  there  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  it  except  upon  the  ex- 
pectation that  the  Sec^retary  would  adopt  the  conclusions  and  recom- 
mendations of  Mr.  Hooper's  report  without  much  mquiry  or  examina- 
tion. They  doubtless  had  been  informed  of  the  report,  and  of  Assist- 
ant Secretaiy  Ilamngton's  assurance  to  General  Dix,  that  the  result 
of  the  investigation  should  be  "  decisive." 

.  The  28th  of  July,  the  time  they  pretend  the  deposit  was  made,  was 
two  days  after  the  duties  on  the  sugar  and  molasses  had  been  paid, 
and  nobody  knows  better  than  Chenery  &  Co.  that  the  Government 
does  not  receive  goods  into  warehouse,  actually  or  constructively, 
after  the  duties  are  paid. 


27 

MR.  HOOPER'S  LAW. 

But  the  law  of  July  14th,  1862,  was  3'et  to  be  got  over  with  the 
Secretary.  This  was  done  by  Mr.  Hooper  in  two  ways.  First,  he 
says,  — 

"In  regard  to  the  law  of  July  14th,  1862,  subjecting  goods  in  public  ware- 
houses to  an  increase  of  duty  when  entered  for  consumption,  after  three 
mouths  from  the  date  of  importation,  it  is  not  clearly  established  by  law  in  this 
country,  as  it  is  in  England,  what  time  constitutes  the  date  of  importation." 

He  means,  if  he  means  anything  by  this,  to  say  that  it  was  not. 
clearly  established  by  law  in  this  country  that  these  goods,  on  the 
28th  of  October,  (for  he  is  applying  it  to  the  present  case),  had  been 
imported  three  months.  He  admits  it  was  three  months  and  four 
days  after  Chenery  &  Co.  entered  them  at  the  Custom  House,  yiz., 
on  the  24th  of  July,  and  swore  that  the  importation  was  then  made,  and 
three  months  and  three  days  after  the  goods  had  all  been  landed  and 
the  rum  actually  put  into  Government  store,  viz.,  on  the  25th  of 
July,  and  yet  he  dojibts  whether  it  is  clearly  established  by  law  in  tliis 
country  —  he  thitiks  it  is  in  England  —  that  all  this  constitutes  an 
importation,  or  the  dxde  of  importation,  before  the  28th  of  i\^^.y.  This 
is  the  opinion  of  the  member  of  Congress  who  claims  to  have  suggest- 
ed and  framed  this  very  change  in  the  law. 

But  second,  fearing  after  all  that  this  might  constitute  an  importa- 
tion, he  proceeded  to  lay  before  the  Secretary  his  understanding  — 
entirely  erroneous  —  of  the*  constiniction  of  the  law  at  the  Custom 
House,  and  the  practice  under  it.     He  says  :  — 

"  I  understand  that  no  change  was  made  in  the  practice  at  the  Custom 
House  in  Boston  in  consequence  of  this  change  in  the  phraseology  of  the  law ; 
that  the  date  of  importation  was  construed  to  mean  the  same  as  the  date  of  de- 
posit in  previous  laws." 

TVhat  Mr.  Hooper  understood,  of  course  I  cannot  say,  but  nothing 
could  be  more  erroneous  than  what  he  states.  The  change  was  made 
the  very  day  the  law  went  into  operation.  IVIr.  Deputy  Hanscom's 
attention  was  specially  called  to  the  alteration  ;  in  fact  he  was  con- 
sulted in  Washington  in  regard  to  it  just  before  it  was  made,  and  he 
changed  the  practice  at  once.  This  Mr.  Hooper  might  easily  have 
ascertained,  and  it  was  his  dut}'^  to  have  ascertained  it  before  making 
such  a  report  to  the  Secretary.  He  certainly  had  no  business  to  make 
a  statement  in  regard  to  it  contrary  to  the  fact.* 

*    Custom  House,  New  York,   ) 
Collector's  Office,  May  14,  1866.  5 

Sir :  —  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  12th  inst.  I  have  to  state  that  I  was 
in  Washington  in  the  latter  part  of  June  and  first  of  July,  1862,  that  while  at 
the  Treasury  Department,  Mr.  George  Wood  showed  me  a  proposed  tariff  bill 
printed  by  Congress,  and  requested  me  to  suggest  any  alterations  which 
occurred  to  me.  Among  other  things,  I  advised  that  the  words  '  date  of 
original  importation'  where  it  appears  in  the  21st  section,  should  be  inserted 
in  lieu  of  the  words  '  date  of  deposit  in  warehouse  or  public  store,'  or  words 
to  that  effect  (the  exact  words  I  do  nQt  now  remember),  similar  to  the  pro- 
vision in  the  5th  section  of  the  act  of  August  5,  1861. 

My  suggestions,  with  the  reasons  therefor,  were  reduced  to  writing  at  the 
request  of  Mr.  Wood,  a  clerk  in  the  Treasury  Department. 

As  soon  as  the  act  reached  me  after  its  passage,  I  examined  it  to  ascer- 
tain if  the  suggestion  had  been  acted  upon,  because  it  had  proved  inconven- 


28 

"  In  regard  to  alterations  of  returns  "  (I  quote  from  Mr.  Hooper's 
report)  "  by  officers  after  they  have  been  handed  into  the  Custom 
House,  I  am  told  that  it  is  constantly  occurring  in  regard  to  dates, 
marks,  or  other  details  where  facts  are  incon'ectly  stated."  There  is 
not  a  circumstance  to  justify  the  assumption  that  the  facts  were  incor- 
rectly stated,  and  it  is  embarrassing  to  know  how  to  characterize  it. 
But  even  if  they  had  been  incorrectly  stated,  Chener}^  &  Co.  should 
have  sought  a  remedy  in  another  way.  But  the  tnith  is,  a  correct 
return  was  pretended  to  be  incorrect,  and  thus  a  foundation  was  laid 
to  correct  a  pretended  inaccuracy,  and  the  connection  was  made  for  a 
fraudulent  purpose.  If  this  is  not  to  be  classed  among  the  gravest  of 
Custom  House  offences,  then  I  do  not  know  where  to  class  it.  Mr. 
Dix's  first  excuse,  when  I  called  him  to  an  account,  was,  that  nothing 
was. more  common  than  these  alterations,  —  they  were  made  every 
day.  This  sui-prised  me,  and  I  asked  him  to  explain  what  he  meant. 
His  explanation  was  simply  and  only  this :  that  officers  —  Store- 
keepers and  Inspectors  —  who  make  these  returns,  on  discovering  in 
a  day  or  two,  on  entry,  that  they  have  made  a  mistake  in  the  count 
and  find  one  or  more  packages  short,  or  over,  as  the  ^case  may  be,  are 
allowed  to  correct  it.  Said  I,  "  Mr,  Dix,  do  you  justify  the  altera- 
tion of  dates  that  are  more  than  three  months'  old,  and  that,  too,  for 
the  purpose  of  falsifying  a  correct  date  and  relieving  an  importer  from 
half  the  duty,  because  corrections  such  as  you  have  now  described  are 
allowed?"    He  admitted  there  was- a  wide  difference  in  the  eases. 

Mr.  Hooper  says :  "Messrs.  Chenery  &  Co.  are  gentlemen  of  high 
character."  I  do  not  controvert  this,  but  men  of  high  character,  even, 
have  no  right  to  defraud  the  Government  in  the  way  they  attempted 
to.  He  also  speaks  of  the  "  high  character  of  Mr.  Dix  as  a  faitiiful 
oflftcer."   In  this  transaction  no  maji  could  have  been  more  unfaithful. 

At  length,  after  we  had  gone  over  the  points  and  I  had  read  the 
law  to  Mr.  Chase,  he  said :  "  One  thing  is  clear,  the  law  is  as  Mr. 
Goodrich  states  it,  and  the  money  paid  for  the  additional  duty  can- 
not be  refunded  to  Chenery  &  Co.  As  to  Mr.  Dix,  he  can  be  ex- 
cused, if  at  all,  only  on  the  ground  of  a  custom  or  'usual  practice' 
which  Mr.  Hooper  says  existed."   I  quote  his  words  as  near  as  I  can. 

Something  then  occurred  to  prevent  Mr.  Chase  from  considering 
the  matter  further  at  that  time,  and  he  requested  us  to  meet  him  at 
the  same  place  at  ten  the  next  morning.  I  met  the  Secretary  at  the 
time  appointed,  but  Mr.  Hooper  did  not  appear.  After  a  few  minutes 
conversation  upon  the  alleged  custom  or  "  usual  practice,"  in  which 
I  stated  that  no  such  custom  existed,  or  had  ever  existed,  so  far  as  I 
knew ;  that  I  never  heard  of  it  till  I  saw  Mr,  Hooper's  report,  and 
that  his  statements  in  regard  to  it  were  wholly  unfounded  and  errone- 
ous, Mr.  Chase  interrupted  me  by  saying:    "I  am  satisfied,  Mr. 


lent  to  keep  a  correct  account  of  the  date  of  deposit  of  goods  in  bonded  ware- 
house, while  the  date  of  original  importation  was  a  fixed  and  certain  record 
made  on  arrival  of  the  vessel.  Finding  the  alteration  had  been  made,  as 
Deputy  Collector,  having  in  charge  tHe  warehouse  business  at  the  Custom 
House,  I  gave  the  necessary  directions  required  by  the  change. 
I  am,  very  truly,  your  Mend  and  ob't  servant, 

ALBERT  HANSCOM. 
Hon.  J,  Z.  Goodrich,  Boston, 


29 

Goodrich,  that  there  was  no  such  custom,  and  if  there  had  been  and 
you  had  known  it,  it  ifould  have  been  good  cause  for  removing  you." 
These,  I  think,  are  his  very  words.  I  responded  simply  by  saying 
' '  Certainly  it  would,"  and  Mr.  Chase  immediately  dictated,  in  mj' 
hearing,  a  letter  to  General  Dix  announcing  the  result  of  his  further 
investigation  of  his  brother's  case,  which  was  that  "Mr.  Goodrich 
was  right  in  removing  him,  and  he  could  not  interfere  in  his  behalf." 
TLis  was  the  substance  of  his  letter,  which  I  supposed  would  be  an 
end  of  the  matter.     But  it  was  not. 

GENERAL  DIX  COMPLAINED  TO  MR.  FESSENDEN. 

Not  long  after  Mr.  Fessenden  succeeded  Mr.  Chase  as  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  General  Dix  complained  to  him  that  his  brother  had 
been  unjustly  removed  from  office  in  the  Boston  Custom  House,  and 
demanded  that  he  should  be  reinstated.  Mr.  Fessenden,  after  re- 
questing the  General  to  call  the  next  day,  sent  for  the  clerk  who  had 
charge  of  the  papers  and  was  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  case, 
and  asked  him  if  Mr.  Chase's  decision  Avas  made  after  a  careful  in- 
quiry into  the  facts  ;  and  upon  being  assured  that  it  was,  he  direct- 
ed him  to  take  the  papers  back.  The  General  called  the  next  day, 
and  was  told  by  Mr.  Fessenden  that  he  could  not  reopen  a  case  of  re- 
moval by  a  Collector  which  had  the  approval  of  his  predecessor  in  the 
first  instance,  and  his  added  subsequent  approval  after  a  full  and  care- 
ful examination  upon  a  re-hearing.  Of  this  I  knew  nothing  at  the 
time,  but  I  have  the  highest  authority  for  saying  the  facts  are  sub- 
stantially as  stated. 

GENERAL  DIX  APPEALED  -TO  MR.  McCULLOCH. 

At  length  Mr.  Fessenden  resigned,  and  Mr.  McCulloch  was  ap- 
pointed Secretary,  from  whom  I  received  a  letter  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  a  copy  :  — 

"  Treasury  Department,  June  9,  1865. 
"  Dear  Sir:  —  I  have  received  a  communication  from  General  Dix,  of  New 
York,  in  relation  to  the  removal  of  his  brother,  Mr.  T.  B.  Dix,  from  the  Cus- 
tom House  in  Boston  in  the  year  1861  (1863). 

"From  an  examination  of  the  papers  submitted  by  General  Dix,  and  a  report 
by  Mr.  Hooper,  member  of  Congress  from  your  city,  upon  the  charges  pre- 
sented, I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  injustice  was  done  to  a  worthy  man  in 
this  removal,  and  I  have  therefore  to  ask  that  Mr.  Dix  be  reinstated  in  the 
place  from  which  he  was  removed.  » 

"  I  am  very  respectfully, 

"  H.  McCULLOCH,  Secretary  of  Treasury. 
"  J.  Z.  Goodrich,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston,  Mass." 

"  An  examination  of  the  papers  submitted  by  General  Dix,  and  a 
report  of  Mr.  Hooper,"  but  no  examination  of  the  reports  I  had 
made,  so  far  as  appears,  nor  a  word  of  explanation  asked  from  me. 
It  seemed  to  me  a  little  remarkable,  to  say  the  least,  that  I  should 
receive  so  summary  a  request  under  all  the  circumstances  of  this  case, 
to  reinstate  Mr.  Dix.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  my  reply, 
dated  June  12th  :  —  , 

"  Dear  Sir :  —  I  have  your  favor  of  the  9th  instant.  I  think  I  can  place  my- 
self right  in  this  matter,  without  going  fully  into  its  merits,  which  would  re- 
quire a  long  letter.  The  removal  was  approved  by  your  predecessor,  Mr. 
Secretary,  now  Chief  Justice,  Chase.    Afterwards  General  Dix  claimed  that 


30 

iiyusticc  had  been  Qone  his  brother,  and  made,  probably,  the  same  statements 
to  Mr.  Chase  that  he  has  made  to  you,  and  requested  that  the  case  might  be 
inquired  into  by  the  Secretary  again,  who  addressed  me  a  private  note  desiring 
tliat  I  would  go  to  Washington  and  maice  a  ftill  explanation  to  him.  I  accord- 
ingly went  to  Washington,  where  I  saw  for  the  flrst  time  the  papers  l\irnlshcd 
by  General  Dix,  and  Mr.  Hooper's  report,  *  *  *  Mr.  Chase  said  he  must 
see  Mr.  Hooper  and  myself  together,  *  *  We  met  at  the  time  appointed, 
Mr.  Hooper  made  a  ftill  verbal  explanation,  in  addition  to  his  report.  1  re- 
plied, and  pointed  out  the  facts,  &c.  *  *  Mr.  Chase  remarked  that  Mr.  Dix 
could  only  be  excused,  if  at  all,  on  the  ground  of  the  custom  which  Mr.  Hooper 
claimed  existed  at  the  Custom  House.  I  remarked  that  no  such  custom  exist- 
ed, or  ought  to  exist.  Here  the  interview  for  that  day  closed,  with  the  under- 
standing that  we  would  meet  the  Secretary  again  next  morning.  I  according- 
ly called  the  next  morning,  but,  if  I  remember  right,  Mr.  Hooper  did  not.  I 
explained  in  regard  to  the  alleged  custom,  and  denied  that  there  was  any  cus- 
tom of  the  kind.  Mr.  Chase  remarked,  '  I  am  satisfied  thei'e  was  no  such  cus- 
tom, and  if  there  had  been  and  you  had  known  it,  it  would  have  been  a  good 
reason  for  removing  you  for  allowing  it.'  This  ended  the  inten^iew,  and  the 
Secretary  at  once,  in  my  hearing,  dictated  a  letter  to  General  Dix  justifying 
my  course  in  the  removal  of  his  brother,  and  declining  to  interfere. 

"  I  state  this  as  the  result  to  which  the  then  Secretary  came  after  an  unusu- 
ally thorough  examination  of  the  case.  *  *  He  approved  of  the  appointment  of 
another  man  in  his  place,  who  has  performed  its  duties  ever  since.  What  am 
I  to  do  with  him,  appointed  with  the  approval  of  Mr,  Chase,  if  I  am  to  rein- 
state Mr.  Dix?  . 

"  P.  S.    I  am  sure  Mr.  Chase  will  confirm  the  foregoing,  in  substance," 

My  only  purpose  in  this  letter  was  to  show  that  the  case  had  been 
carefully  and  thoroughly  considered  by  Mr.  Chase.  Mr,  McCuUoch's 
reply  was  as  follows  :  — 

"  Trkasury  Dpartment,  June  16,  1865. 

"  Dear  Sir :  —  Your  favor  of  the  12th  instant  is  received.  General  Dix  in  his 
communications  with  this  office,  charges  that  his  brother  was  removed,  not 
for  improper  conduct  on  his  part,  but  because  he  failed  to  obtain  for  a  relative 
of  yours  a  position  in  the  Custom  Souse  at  New  York. 

"  The  charge  is  made  without  resei'vation,  and  a  letter  fi*om  you  to  General 
Dix,  under  date  July  11,  1861,  is  referred  to  in  connection  with  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Barney,  dated  September  7th,  '61,  as  establishing  the  charge. 

"  General  Dix  urges  very  strongly,  and  very  plausibly,  that  the  only  way  in 
which  justice  can  be  done  to  his  brother  is  by  having  him  reinstated  in  the 
office  from  which  he  was  removed. 

"  Unless  you  are  prepared  to  disprove  the  charge  referred  to,  it  would  be  no 
more  than  simple  justice  to  Mr.  Dix  that  he  be  reinstated  in  his  former  office, 
although  in  reinstating  him  you  will  be  under  the  necessity  of  displacing  an 
ollicer  who  was  appointed  with  the  approval  of  Mr.  Chase, 
"  I  am  very  respectfully, 
•  "H.  Mcculloch,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

"J,  Z.  GooDUicn,  Esq.,  Collector  of  Customs,  Boston,  Mass." 

My  repl}'  to  this  very  extraordinary  letter,  was  as  follows  :  — 

"  Collkctok's  Office,  ) 

"  Custom  House,  Boston,  19th  June,  1865,  5  i 
"  Dear  Sir :  —  Your  favor  of  the  16th  is  just  received.  By  it  I  am  informed 
for  the  first  time,  that  General  Dix  charges  that  his  brother  was  removed,  not 
from  improper  conduct  on  his  part,  but  because  he  failed  to  obtain  for  a  rela- 
tive of  yours  (mine)  a  position  in  the  Custom  House  at  New  York.  In  this 
the  General  is  utterly  mistaken,  *  *  i  never  had  the  slightest  feeling 
against  General  Dix  on  the  subject,  nor  against  his  brother.  I  always  sup- 
posed he  did  all  he  properly  could  td  obtain  the  appointment  of  my  friend. 
My  recollection  is  that  the  suggestion  was  well  received  by  the  General ;  that 
he  applied  to  Mr.  Barney  in  my  friend's  behalf,  and  I  always  understood  the 
reason  why  the  appointment  was  not  made  was,  that  Mr.  Barney  did  not  see  his 
way  clear  to  appoint  a  Massachusetts  man.    He  wrote  me  on  the  subject,  and 


p 


31 

assigned  that  as  his  reason.  Such  is  now  my  recollection,  though  the  letters 
are  none  of  them  before  me ;  indeed,  I  do  not  think  I  preserved  them,  never 
expecting  to  have  occasion  to  refer  to  them  agaip. 

"  Furthermore,  the  friend  alluded  to  had  received  an  appointment  from  me 
nearly  a  year  before  Mr.  Dix  was  removed. 

"  Not  long  after  I  was  appointed  Collector,  Mr.  Chase,  in  a  private  note,  at 
the  request,  as  he  said,  of  General  Dix,  asked  me  not  to  remove  his  brother. 
He  was  as  subject  to  removal  on  political  grounds,  having  been  a  Buchanan 
Democrat,  as  any  one,  and  his  removal  was  expected  undoubtedly  —  certain- 
ly feared  —  on  tiais  ground.  When  I  received  Mr.  C.'s  note  I  abandoned  all 
thought  of  removing  him,  till  the  facts  which  I  assigned  as  a  reason  for  doing 
it  Anally  came  to  my  knowledge.  Nor  did  I  do  it  then  without  presenting  the 
facts  to  Mr.  Chase  and  obtaining  his  opinion,  which  was  done  in  this  way. 
Mr.  Tuck,  the  Naval  Officer,  happened  to  be  going  to  Washington  just  about 
that  time,  and  I  gave  him  the  original  papers  which  contained  the  evidence  of 
the  impropriety  complained  of,  and  asked  him  to  explain  the  matter  to  Mr. 
Chase.  Mr.  Tuck  infoi'med  me  that  Mr.  Chase's  opinion  was  that  the  officers 
concerned  in  the  transaction  should  be  removed,  and  that  he  desired  me  to 
send  a  copy  of  the  papers  to  the  Department.  I  then  made  the  removal,  and 
forwarded  copies  of  the  papers  as  requested,  with  my  reasons.  The  removal 
was  at  once  approved.  The  case  was  ftirther  investigated  by  Mr.  Chase  after 
this. 

"  I  am  prepared  to  disprove  the  charge  referred  to,  and  also  to  convince  you 
that  the  cause  of  removal,  —  if  iiou  desire  to  open  the  question  after  it  was  so  thor- 
oughly considered  by  the  then  Secretary,  —  was  sufficient,  and  will  go  to  Wash- 
ington for  that  pm-pose  if  you  desire  it." 

No  reply  to  this  letter  was  received,  nor  was  I  invited  to  Washing- 
ton to  make  explanations.  At  length,  however,  I  went  to  Washing- 
ton, and  on  the  10th  of  August  saw  the  Secretary  for. the  first  time 
at  his  office.  After  a  few  -words  of  introduction,  I  at  once  introduced 
the  Dix  case.  He  said  he  did  not  wish  to  hear  anything  further  ou 
tlie  subject.  I  replied  that  he  had  come  to  the  clear  opinion  from  read- 
ing Mr.  Hooper's  report  that  I  had  done  injustice  to  Mi*.  Dix,  and  I 
thought  he  should  at  least  hear  -^^hat  I  had  to  say.  He  replied  that 
he  did  not  wish  to  go  into  the  matter  ;  that  it  was  unnecessar}"",  «fec. 
I  insisted  that  after  saying  what  he  had  in  his  letter,  it  was  due  to 
me  that  he  listened  to  my  explanations,  and  told  him  I  had  prepared  a 
written  statement,  which,  if  he  preferred,  he  could  take  and  read  at 
his  convenience,  which  would  not  occupy  more  than  fifteen  or  twenty 
minutes.  He  said  no,  he  did  not  care  to  read  it.  I  again  urged  that 
he  owed  it  to  me  personally  to  do  as  much  as  this.  He  said  he  was 
disposed  to  do  any  thing  he  could  for  me  personally,  but  no  good 
could  come  from  a  further  discussion  of  that  case,  and  declined  even 
to  read  what  I  had  prepared.  I  said  if  you  positively  decline,  I  shall 
of  course  be  obliged  to  submit.  After  some  further  conversation  on 
the  subject,  he  at  length  said :  "It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  the 
question,  for  I  have  conferred  with  Mr.  Bailey,  who  has  satisfied  me 
that  you  are  xight  about  it." 

And  who  is  Mr.  Bailey  ? .  He  is  Mr.  J.  F.  Bailey  who  was  special 
agent  of  the  Department  under  Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Fessenden,  and 
under  Mr.  McCulloch  also  till  a  short  time  before,  when  he  was  ap- 
pointed Collector  of  Internal  Revenue  in  the  city  of  New  Yorlr,  which 
office  he  holds  now. 

Some  time  after  Mr.  Hooper's  report,  but  before  I  had  seen  it  or 
knew  it  was  made,  —  not  far  from  the  first  of  December,  1863,  —  Mr. 
Bailey,  who  had  spent  several  weeks  in  examining  other  matters  in 
the  Boston  Custom  House,  was  requested  by  Mr.  Chase, to  examine 


32 

• 
and  report  upon  the  Dix  case  also.  He  commenced  the  examination 
with  a  strong  personal  desire  that  the  matter  might  be  arranged  satis- 
factorily to  General  Dix,  and  hoped  to  find  a  state  of  facts  that  would 
justify  a  report  exonerating  his  brotlier.  I  laid  before  him  all  the 
facts,  and  explained  them  just  as  I  had  done  to  Mr.  Hooper.*  At 
the  close  of  his  investigation  he  told  me  he  was  sorry  to  be  obliged 
to  say  that  I  could  not  restore  Mr.  Dix  consistently  with  my  duty  as 
a  public  officer,  nor  witli  my  self-respect,  and  that  he  should  so  state 
to  Mr.  Chase.  I  suppose  he  made  a  repoi't  to  that  effect,  but  I  never 
saw  it. 

After  all  this  it  would  seem  to  be  quite  time  Mr.  McCulloch  came 
to  the  conclusion  tliat  I  was  right  about  it,  or  possibly  might  he.  And 
yet,  satisfied  of  this,  as  he  admitted  finally,  soon  after  Mr.  Hamlin 
was  appointed  Collector,  he  requested  him  to  put  Mr.  Dix  back  into 
the  ofifice  from  which  he  was  removed.  This,  I  understand,  Mr. 
Hamlin  declined  to  do,  but  said,  in  substance,  that  he  would  appoint 
him  to  another  office  if  the  Secretary,  after  the  decisions  which  had 
been  made  by  his  predecessors,  desired  it.  In  this  way  he  threw  the 
responsibility  upon  the  Secretary,  and  at  his  request  appointed  Mr. 
Dix  an  additional  Aid  to  the  Revenue.  In  other  words,  an  office  was 
created  for  Mr,  Dix,  and  it  ought  to  be  known  that  he  received  it  at 
the  request  and  on  the  responsibility  of  the  Secretary,  and  that,  too, 
after  he  became  satisfied  that  I  was  right  about  this  case,  and  of  course 
that  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Chase,  was  right. 

A  word  should  be  added  in  explanation  of  the  request  to  General 
Dix  to  favor  an  appointment  in  the  New  York  Custom  House  from 
Massachusetts.  I  wrote  him  that  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Chase's  re- 
quest I  should  retain  his  brother,  but  added  that  I  was  urged  to  remove 
him  on  the  ground,  in  part,  that  he  came  from  New  York,  and  was  occu- 
pying a  place  wliieh  fairly  belonged  to  some  one  in  Massachusetts.  As 
an  answer  to  this  I  aslved  him  to  request  Collector  Barney  to  appoint 
some  one  from  Massachusetts  whom  I  should  recommend.  After  Mr. 
Barney  wrote  me,  I  thought  no  more  of  it.  These,  with  those  before 
stated,  are  the  substantial  facts  as  I  remember  them,  and  if  General" 
Dix  has  any  letters  from  me  which  prove,  or  tend  to  prove  his  charge, 
he  is  at  perfect  libertj^  to  publish  them.  J  am  willing  the  world 
should  know  all  I  have  said  or  written  about  this  matter.  But  Gen- 
eral Dix  has  no  letter  of  mine  which  will  prove  his  charge.  It  is 
obvious  his  purpose  was  to  withdraw  attention  from  his  brother  by 
getting  up  a  personal  issue  with  me.  His  charge  is  utterly  false. 
He  has  not  a  particle  of  excuse  for  making  it.  And  the  attempt  to 
divert  attention  from  the  charge  against  his  brother,  which  Mr.  Chase, 
against  every  personal  wish  and  desire,  had  been  forced  to  sustain, 
by  pretending  to  another  Secretaiy  that  I  was  influenced.by  unworthy 
personal  motives  growing  out  of  an  affair  of  no  consequence  which  I 

*  Extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Bailey  to  me,  dated  May  16,  186G  :  — 

"  The  details  of  the  case  of  Mr.  Timothy  B.  Dix,  and  of  the  inquiries  made 
in  it  by  me,  under  direction  of  the  then  Secretary,  have  in  great  part  passed 
from  my  mind,  but  in  reply  to  your  request  that  I  state  whether  you  exhibited 
all  the  papers,  and  showed  a  disposition  to  render  every  facility  for  a  full 
examination, /am  ciear  that  all  my  impressions  as  to  your  oicn  course  were  to 
that  effect" 


83 

• 
had  forgotten,.is  especially  mean  and* cowardly.  And  the  time  spent 
by  Mr.  McCulloch  in  this  mode  of  reviewing  the  decisions  of  his  pre- 
decessors, it  is  qnite  safe  to  say  will  be  very  poorly  spent.  If  he 
had  told  General  Dix  to  prove  his  charge,  made  without  "  reserva- 
tion," before  calling  on  me  to  "disprove"  it,  the  proceeding  would 
have  been  much  more  regular. 

Many  will  wonder  how  Mr.  Hooper  could  have  expected  that  Mr. 
Chase  would  ever  approve  such  a  report  as  his.  The  truth  undoubt- 
edly is,  he  had  no  expectation  Mr.  Chase  would  ever  examine  his 
report.  If  he  had,  he  certainly  would  have  made  a  different  one.  His 
expectation  unquestionably  was  that  the  matter  would  be  settled  by 
Mr.  Hari-ington,  the  Assistant  Secretary.  With  him  there  would 
have  been  no  difficulty.  His  assurance  had  been  obtained  that  the 
result  of  the  investigation  should  be  "  decisive." 

The  fact  that  Mr.  Chase  requested  Mr.  Hooper  to  report  upon  the 
case,  implied  that  he  had  confidence  that  he  would  make  a  fair  and 
true  report.  He  said  nothing  to  me  except  this:  '■'•  I  am  satisfied, 
Mr.  Goodrich,  there  teas  no  such  custom  (as  Mr.  Hooper  claimed  ex- 
isted) ,  and  if  there  had  been,  and  you  had  Jcnoivn  it,  it  would  have  been 
good  cause  for  removing  you."  This  he  said,  and  of  course  did  not 
rely  on  Mr.  Hooper's  statements,  doubtless  feeling  that  the  confidence 
he  had  placed  in  him  had  been  misplaced. 


MR.  HOOPER  AKD  SECRETARY  McCULLOCH 

O]^  baggage-smuggli:n'G  by  the  re- 

SP|:CTABLE  A:N^D.  WEALTHY. 

The  law  exempts  from  duty  "  wearing  apparel  in  actual  use,"  only, 
"  and  other  personal  eflTects,  not  merchandise." 

The  construction  given  this  law  by  the  Department  heretofore 
has  been,  that  articles  that  might  be  admitted  free  as  "  wearing  ap- 
parel," were  "  limited  to  such  as  it  shall  be  satisfactorily  shown  had 
been  in  actual  use  of  the  person  bringing  it  into  the  United  States." 
(Treasury  Circular,  April  12th,  1847.) 

And  the  meaning  of  "  personal  effects  "  is  thus  stated  :  — 

"  The  general  description  of  personal  effects,  that  they  are  such  as  are  usu- 
ally carried  about  the  person  of  a  traveller  from  place  to  place,  is  a  very  good 
one,  and  is  adopted  by  this  Department.  It  includes  his  trunk,  his  watch,  his 
pen-knife,  his  pencil  or  pen,  his  stationery,  his  razors,  &c.,  in  short,  every 
thing  appertaining  to  his  person,  not  merchandise."  (Circular  Instructions, 
September  28th,  1843.) 

A  circular  was  issued  by  the  Department  August  6th,  1864,  special- 
ly enjoining  it  upon  Collectors  to  be  vigilant  in  the  execution  of  this 
law.     The  following  is  an  extract  from  it :  — 

"  The  examination  of  travellers'  baggage  will,  imder  any  circumstances,  be 
a  very  unpleasant  and  annoying  duty ;  neveitheless,  it  must  be  performed." 

The  following  are  extracts  from  another  circular  of  instructions  to 
Collectors  from  the  Department,  July  25th,  1865  :  — 

5 


34 

• 

"  Costoms  offlcei*s  seem  to  entertain  great  fears,  lest  they  should  hurt  some 
one's  feelings,  or  be  thought  to  do  their  duty  too  rigidly,  and  the  result  Is, 
that  they  are  laughed  at  behind  their  backs  by  Immigrauts  and  passengers, 
■who  very  often  succeed  in  getting  various  dutiable  articles  through  without 
payiug  duty,  of  more  or  less,  sometimes  of  considerable  value.  I  shall  be  glad 
to  know  that  you  have  no  such  squeamish  officers  among  your  subordinates. 
The  Government  can  dispense  with  the  services  of  all  such.  He  who  has  not 
resolution  and  high  sense  of  duty  enough  to  overhaul  the  baggage,  even  of 
ladies,  who  are  often  smugglers,  is  unfit  for  his  place." 

Such  were  the  views  of  the  Department,  and  such  its  recent  instruc- 
tions in  regard  to  tlie  execution  of  this  law. 

On  the  19th  of  August,  1864,  a  gentleman  and  three  ladies  arrived 
in  the  steamer  from  Europe.  The  gentleman  made  a  written  declara- 
tion that  their  trunks  contained  "  clothing  for  three  ladies  and  one 
gentleman,"  which  he  handed  to  the  officer  whose  duty  it  was  to  re- 
ceive it.  This  was  done,  as  was  apparent  from  what  followed,  with 
the  expectation  that  the  declaration  would  be  accepted  and  the 
trunks  allowed  to  pass  without  examination.  The  officer  inquired 
whether  they  contained  any  dutiable  articles,  or  anything  besides 
clothing  in  use.,  and  was  told  that  they  did  not.  The  trunks  were 
then  passed  on  to  another  officer  for  examination.  He  soon  found 
articles  that  were  dutiable.  The  gentleman  then  said,  "  Do  you  ex- 
amine so  particularly  as  that  ?  "  When  informed  that  the  instructions 
were  to  examine  sufficiently  to  discertain  whether  there  were  any 
dutiable  articles,  he  then  said  there  was  a  "  considerable  quantitj^of 
new  goods,"  and  requested  that  the  trunks  might  be  sent  to  the  Ap- 
praisers and  opened  there,  as  he  wanted  them  handled  carefully.  This 
request  was  at  once  complied  with.  All  this  occurred  before  I  heard 
of  the  case,  and  I  never  saw  either  the  trunks,  or  the  clothing,  or  the 
new  goods. 

The  next  morning,  before  I  lme\/  whether  the  examination  had 
been  made  at  the  Appraisers,  Mr.  Hooper  called  on  me  at  the  Collect- 
or's office  in  a  perfect  rage  of  passion.  He  was  very  angry.  I  have 
rarely  seen  a  man  more  angry.  Coming  up  to  my  desk  he  demanded 
the  trunks  of  the  ladies  and  gentlemen,  naming  them.  I  replied  that 
I  knew  very  little  about  the  circumstances  of  their  detention,  and 
must  have  more  information  before  I  could  act  in  the  matter.  He 
walked  back  and  forth,  growing  more  excited,  if  possible,  and  said 
they  had  been  sent  to  the  Appraisers,  and  repeated  his  demand.  I 
said  again  I  could  give  no  order  till  I  had  more  information.  This 
did  not  satisfy  him,  and  he  again  demanded  the  immediate  delivery 
of  the  trunks.  I  replied  —  somewhat  in  earnest  by  this  time  myself, 
—  that  they  had  been  sent  to  the  Appraisers  by  the  Inspector  for  fur- 
ther examination,  and  properly,  as  it  was  my  duty,  to  suppose,  and 
that  he  might  rest  assured,  I  should  give  no  order  for  them  till  I  re- 
ceived the  report  of  the  Appraiser,  at  the  same  time  assuring  him  of 
no  disposition  to  detain  them  a  moment  unnecessarily.  Soon,  while 
we  were  yet  talking,  the  Appraiser's  report  was  sent  in  to  me.  "With- 
out waiting  to  read  the  items  I  feaw  that  it  was  made  by  R.  K.  Dar- 
rah.  Assistant  Appraiser,  who  certified  to  $568.85  of  dutiable  goods 
at  the  foreign  value,  and  to  $219.79  duties  upon  them,  and  told  Mr. 
Hooper  that  I  could  not  decide  upon  the  case  till  I  had  learned  all 
the  facts,  but  was  willing  to  order  a  delivery  of  the  trunks  with  all 


^5 

their  contents,  if  he  would  sign  on  the  back  of  the  appraisement  the 
following,  to  which  he  finally  agreed  :  — 

"  I  agree  to  pay  such  sums  to  J.  Z.  Goodrich,  Collector,  as  may  be  found  to 
be  due  from  (inserting  the  name)  either  as  forfeiture,  penalty,  or  duty,  for 
bringing  the  goods  into  this  port  in  his  baggage  which  are  described  within. 
(Signed)  S.  HOOPER. 

"Boston,  August  20th,  186^." 

During  our  interview  Mr.  Hooper  had  a  great  deal  to  say  about 
the  impropriety  of  presuming  to  examine  the  baggage  of  respectable 
people  who  were  above  suspicion.  His  repeated  demands  were  based 
on  that  impropriety.  The  law  did  not  mean  that  people  of  respecta- 
bility and  character  should  be  annoyed  in  this  way.  My  reply,  in 
substance,  was  that  the  law  and  my  instructions  were,  neither  to  ' 
annoy  or  detain  anybod}^  unnecessarily,  but  to  examine  the  baggage 
of  everybody  so  far  as  necessary  to  ascertain  whether  it  contained 
dutiable  goods  ;  that  if  respectable  people  brought  dutiable  articles  in 
their  baggage,  there  seemed  to  be  no  reason  why  they,  especially, 
should  be  allowed  to  pass  them  without  paying  the  duty. 

Mr.  Hooper  at  length  complained  to  the  Secretary  in  behalf  of  his 
friends,  and  of  the  manner  this  law  was  being  executed  at  the  Boston 
Custom  House,  This  I  learned  from  Mr.  French,  the  late  Deputy, 
who  was  so  informed  at  the  Department.  Finally,  on  the  19th  of 
August,  18G5,  I  wrote  the  Secretary,  and  after  reciting  the  principal 
facts,  added :  — 

"  The  owners  of  the  baggage,  very  respectable  citizens  of  Boston,  com- 
plained that  the  trunks  were  not  allowed  to  pass  without  examination,  and 
others,  friends  of  theirs,  who  are  influential  citizens,  have  censured  me  se- 
verely for  the  course  that  was  taken.  The  case  is  not  disposed  of,  and  I  take 
tlife  liberty  of  presenting  it  to  you,  as  my  orders  came  from  you.  I  suppose 
the  course  pui'sued  by  my  officers  was  the  course  of  duty,  but  for  the  reasons 
indicated  I  shall  be  glad  of  the  views  of  the  Department." 

The  Secretary  replied,  August  29th,  1865,  among  other  things  :  — 

"  You  transmit  a  list  of  the  articles,  contained  in  the  trunks  in  question, 
which  were  determined  by  the  Appraisers  to  be  dutiable,  and  the  value,  and 
rate  and  amount  of  duty  affixed  to  each  article.  Excepting  a  small  piece  of 
carpeting  of  trifling  value,  the  use  of  which  I  do  not  know,  the  articles  on  this 
list  seem  to  correspond  with  the  declaration  made,  being  ladies'  clothing;  and 
the  quantity  of  them  does  not  seem  to  me  unreasonably  large  for  three  ladies, 
such  as  you  represent  these,  returning  from  Europe,  with  the  exception,  per- 
haps, that  the  quantity  of  gloves  and  bonnets  may  be  somewhat  larger  than 
usual,  though  not  obviously  excessive,  if,  as  I  conjecture,  the  persons  you  re- 
fer to,  are  among  the  wealthiest  as  well  as  most  respectable  citizens  of  Bos- 
ton. 

"  You  say  that  friends  of  this  party  who  are  influential  citizens,  have  cen- 
sured you  severely  for  the  course  that  was  taken.  You  do  not  state  why  you 
have  been  censured,  and  I  do  not  understand  from  your  letter  upon  what 
points  in  this  case  you  wish  the  views  of  the  Department,  whether  in  regard 
to  the  quantity  of  the  different  articles,  or  otherwise.    Please  inform  me." 

I  thought  I  had  made  the  ground  of  complaint  against  me  clear, 
but  the  Secretary  seemed  not  to  understand  me,  so  I  wrote  him  again 
as  follows  :  — 

"  The  law  exempts  from  duty  *  wearing  apparel  in  actual  use'  only.  (See 
Section  2,  Art.  March  3d,  1857.)  *  *  *  *  * 

"  The  articles  returned  by  the  Appraiser  were  new,  and  had  just  been 
bought,  none  of  them  ever  having  been  in  use.    It  was  not  pretended  that 


se 

they  liad  been.  No  doubt  they  were  by  law  dutiable.  Besides  the  articles  so 
returned,  the  baggage  contained  clothing  for  three  ladies  and  one  gentleman. 
The  officer  inquired  whether  the  trunks  contained  any  dutiable  articles,  or  any 
thing  besides  clothing  in  use,  and  wais  told  that  they  did  not. 

"  The  baggage  was  examined  by  another  officer;  and  upon  finding  some  of 
the  dutiable  ai*ticles,  the  owner  then  requested,  not  before,  that  they  might  be 
sent  to  the  Appraisers  and  examined  there. 

"None  of  the  dutiable  articles  were  'mentioned  to  the  Collector,'  as  re- 
quired by  the  Act  of  1799. 

"  The  particular  point  upon  which  I  desire  your  views  Is,  Was  it  the  duty  of 
the  officers  of  the  Customs  to  make  the  examination  for  the  purpose  stated,  and  to 
detain  the  trunks  so  long  as  might  be  necessary  for  thatpujpose?" 

On  the  7th  of  September  the  Secretary,  in  a  letter  to  my  successor, 
Mr.  Hamlin,  said, — 

"  I  have  before  me  a  letter  of  the  late  Collector,  dated  31st  ultimo,  in  rela- 
tion to  certain  baggage  of  passengers  by  the  Asia. 

"  It  has  never  been  the  practice  to  demand  duties  upon  wearing  apparel 
which  passengers  may  bring  with  them  into  this  country  in  reasonable  quan- 
tities for  their  own  actual  use.  The  term  '  wearing  apparel  in  actual  use'  has 
not  been  considered  literally  to  mean  what  one  wears  upon  the  person,  but  wear- 
ing  apparel  for  the  actual  or  personal  use  of  the  passengers,  such  as  it  would 
be  supposed  the  station  in  life  of  the  parties  in  possession  would  entitle  him 
or  her  to  make  actual  use  of. 

"  The  case  mentioned  in  the  late  Collector's  letter,  — the  character  of  the 
parties  seeming  to  preclude  any  suspicion  of  dishonest  intentions,  —  does  not 
seem  to  require  any  flirther  action." 

Now  a  word  upon  this  coiTCspondence.  I  failed  utterly  to  get  the 
Secretary's  views  upon  the  only  point  I  particularly  asked  or  desired . 
them,  viz.,  whether  it  was  the  duty  of  the  officers  of  the  Customs  to 
make  the  examination  at  all.  This,  I  stated,  was  the  ground  of  com- 
plaint and  the  cause  of  censure.  It  necessarily  must  have  been,  for 
that  was  all  that  had  then  been  done  ;  and,  indeed,  it  was  all  I  ever 
did  except  afterwards  to  request  the  owners  by  letter  to  pay  the  du- 
ties, but  they  never  paid  them,  nor  replied  to  my  letter.  They  left 
the  case  to  be  managed  by  Mr.  Hooper  in  Washington.  But  I  did 
get  from  the  Secretary  an  extraordinary  construction  of  the  law.  He 
says :  "  Except  a  small  piece  of  carpeting  of  little  value,  the  use  of 
which  I  do  not  know  (as  if  that  could  make  any  difference),  the  arti- 
cles in  this  list  seem  to  correspond  with  the  declaration,  being  ladies' 
clothing."  The  written  declaration  was  "  clothing  for  three  ladies 
and  one  gentleman,"  and  the  added  verbal  declaration  was,  that  the 
trunks  did  not  contain  any  dutiable  articles,  nor  anything  besides 
clothing  in  use.  .  But  when  the  examining  officer  had  discovered  some 
dutiable  articles,  the  owner  then  said  there  wa«  "  a  considerable 
quantity  of  new  goods."  They  had  been  bought  just  before  sailing 
for  this  country.    What  were  they  ? 

Value.  Duty. 

A  piece  of  Carpeting,        .         .         .         $9.45  $5.40 

Artificial  Flowers,        ....     20.00'  10.00 

Four  dozen  pair  Kid  Gloves,    ;        .         34.00  17.00 

Seven  Silk  Bonnets      .         .         .         .42.00  25.20 

Thirteen  Muslin,  Silk  and  Lace  Dresses,  355.00  144.25 

Four  dozen  Linen  P.  Handkerchiefs,         38.40  13.44 

Two  Silk  Cloaks,          ....     40.00  14.00 

Two  Silk  Mantillas,          .         .         .         30.00  10.50 

$568.85  $219.79 


37 

And  j^et  the  Secretary  says  these  "  new  goods,"  all  dutiable  ac- 
cording to  the  return  of  the  Appraiser,  and  according  to  anj"^  con- 
struction oX  the  law  which  has  ever  been  given  by  a  predecessor  of 
the  Secretary,  or  any  construction  which  is  not  a  manifest  miscon- 
struction, "correspond  with  the  declaration."  He  adds:  "  Tlie 
quantity"  does  not  seem  to  nie  unreasonably  large  for  three  ladies, 
such  as  you  represent  these  returning  from  Europe,  with  the  excep- 
tion, perhaps,  that  the  quantity  of  gloves  and  bonnets  may  be  some- 
what larger  than  usual,  though  not  obviously  excessive,  if,  as  I  con- 
jecttire,  the  persons  you  refer  to,  are  among  the  wealthiest  as  well  as 
most  respectable  citizens  of  Boston."  (I  said  nothing  about  wealthy 
people,  and  he  got  this  "conjecture"  of  course,  from  Mr.  Hooper.) 
This  is,  to  say  the  least,  an  unusual  reason  or  rale  by  which  to  de- 
termine the  quantity  of  neio  articles  of  clothing  and  carpeting  persons 
may  buy  in  Paris  just  before  sailing  for  this  countrj',  and  enter  here 
without  paying  dutj'.  The  wealthier  the  persons  the  more  they  may 
buy  and  bring  for  future  use.  The  Secretary  would  allow  poor  people 
to  bring  but  little.  But  ^^ quantity"  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question.  Any  quantity  brought  into  this  country  as  these  were,  for 
future  use,  is  an  unlavjful  quantity  to  admit  to  free  entry,  and  this  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  both  the  Secretaiy  and  Mr.  Hooper  must  have 
known.  They  certainly  ought  to  have  known  it.  "  Wearing  apparel 
in  actual  use,"  are  the  words  of  the  law.  And  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  determining  what  the  legal  sense  of  the  words  "  in  actual  use"  is. 
The  Secretary  did  not  throw  any  gi'eat  light  upon  their  meaning  when 
he  said  they  had  "  not  been  considered  literally  to  mean  what  was 
upon  the  person."  Few  would  have  thought  so,  even  if  the  Secretary 
had  not  said  that.  But  they  have  been  considered,  and  b^  the  De- 
partment, to  mean  only  such  articles  "  as  it  shall  be  satisfactorily 
shown  had  been  in  actual  use  of  the  person  bringing  them  into  the 
United  States."  This  was  the  settled  construction  of  the  Department 
until  these  letters  of  the  Secretary,  and  it  was  the  true  one.  But  if 
the  Secretaiy's  construction  is  to  be  given  to  the  laAV,  so  that  new 
articles  of  clothing,  and  carpeting,  too  (if  what  it  is  to  be  used  for 
is  not  known),  may  be  brought. without  paying  duty,  I  submit  that 
the  poor  should  be  allowed  to  bring  as  much  as  the  wealthy  ;  as  much 
for  future  use,  I  mean.  Now  the  wealthy  are  not  allowed  to  bring 
more  than  the  poor.  Both  are  allowed  to  bring  without  duty  all  the 
wearing  apparel  which  had  been  or  was  in  actual  use,  and  no  more. 
If  the  wealth}'  do  actually  bring  more,  it  is  because  from  their  posi- 
tion and  wealth  they  have  larger  wardrobes  in  actual  use.  And  the 
General  Regulations,  if  correctly  quoted,  agree  perfectly  with  the 
Circular  of  1847,  viz.,  "  Such  as  it  would  be  supposed  the  situation 
in  life  of  the  party  in  possession  would  entitle  or  require  him  or  her 
to  make  actual  use  of."  Actual  use  of  when  ?  Certainly  not  at  some 
indefinite  time  in  the  future.  The  Secretary,  in  quoting  this  passage, 
omitted  the  word  "  require."  But  the  passage  obviously  relates  to 
the  quantity  which  "  had  been  "  and  was  "  in  actual  use,"  such  as 
it  would  be  supposed  the  station  in  life  of  the  party  had  "  required," 
and  not  to  new  articles  of  merchandise  or  clothing  for  use  one,  two, 
or  five  years  hence.  Persons  maj'  bring  what  their  station  has  en- 
titled or  required  them  to  make  actual  use  of.     Any  other  construe- 


tion  would  be  unreasonable  and  unjust,  and  the  present  law  does  not 
admit  of  any  other. 

Now  apply  the  law  to  this  case.  The  i^ersons  referred  to  had  been 
spending  some  time  in  Europe.  They  had  the  wardrobe  " required" 
for  people  visiting  Europe  "conjectured"  to  be  wealthy,  and  per- 
haps fashionable.  This,  though  probably  large,  they  had  a  right  to 
have  passed  as  free  baggage.  And  all  this  they  had  besides  the  "  new 
goods."  They  had  seven  trunks,  one  chest,  one  bag,  and  one  pack- 
age. Now  suppose  they  had  remained  in  Europe  six  months  longer, 
would  they  have  bought  these  new  articles  when  they  did  because 
"required"  or  needed  for  actual  immediate  use ?  The  facts  justify 
me  in  assuming  that  they  would  not.  Suppose  they  had  been  in  this 
country,  would  they  have  bought  them  when  they  did  because  in  their 
station  in  life  they  would  have  required  so  many  new  articles  for 
actual  immediate  use  ?  I  assume,  again,  that  they  would  not.  The 
truth  undoubtedly  is — they  would  not  pi*etend  to  the  contrary  — 
they  bought  these  new  articles  because  they  could  buy  them  better 
there  than  here,  not  for  immediate,  but  for  future  use.  At  any  rate, 
they  had  not  needed  them  before  they  landed  at  Boston.  Before  that 
time  their  numerous  bonnets,  dresses,  gloves,  handkerchiefs,  flowers, 
«fcc.,  which  had  been  in  actual  use  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  had 
been  all-sufficient.  They  had  a  right  to  bring  as  many  new  articles 
for  future  use  as  they  pleased,  but  the  law  required  them  to  "  mention 
all  such  articles  to  the  Collector,"  and  pay  the  duties  on  them.  No 
sensible  lawyer  can  say  otherwise,  as  the  law  is,  and  no  Secretary  but 
Mr.  McCulloch  ever  did  say  otherwise,  ^and  he  is  the  last  man  who 
ought  to  have  said  otherwise  to  me  and  my  officers,  who  were  doing 
all  in  oih'  power  to  carry  out  his  positive  and  repeated  instructions. 
He  ought  to  have  said  the  examining  officers  were  entirely  right,  and 
I  think  he  would  if  he  had  not  allowed  Mr.  Hooper  to  advise  him 
otherwise.  Under  other  ch'cumstances,  can  anybody  doubt  he  would 
have  censured  me  severely,  not  merely  for  transgressing  the  law,  but  for 
violating  his  positive  and  pointed  instructions,  if  I  had  allowed  these 
trunks  to  pass  without  examination,  or  had  admitted  this  list  of  new 
goods  to  free  entity  after  examination.  ' 

Suppose  his  interpretation  of  the  law  is  carried  out,  what  will  be 
the  practical  effect  ?  Whenever  a  passenger  arrives  with  his  wearing 
apparel  which  "had  been"  in  use,  and  with  new  articles,  more  or 
less,  for  future  use,  several  questions  will  at  once  arise  with  the 
examining  officers  in  deciding  upon  the  new  articles.  (1.)  What  is 
the  situation  in  life  of  the  passenger  ?  It  may  sometimes  be  difficult 
to  decide  this  exactly.  But  ascertained  as  near  as  it  can  be,  the  next 
question  will  be.  How  many  new  goods  does  that  station  in  life  en- 
title him  to  have  passed  without  duty?  And  if  the  officer  should 
" conjecture"  the  passenger  to  be  one  of  the  "  wealthiest  citizens  of 
Boston,"  a  third  question  will  arise,  viz. :  How  many  more  new  goods 
would  it  be  reasonable,  in  consideration  of  his  gre*t  wealth,  to  allow 
him  to  take  free  of  duty  ?  But,  to  say  nothing  of  the  manifest  in- 
justice of  favoring  the  wealthy  in  this  way,  how  could  you  establish 
a  uniform  rule?  From  the  necessity  of  the  case  the  question.  How 
much  would  be  reasonable  ?  would  have  to  be  decided  by  the  opinion 
of  the  officer,  and  the  consequence  would  be  as  many  different  opin- 
ions and  results  as  there  are  diflferent  officers.    On  the  whole,  I  doubt 


39 

whether  it  would  be  any  improrement  on  the  rule,  as  the  law  has 
hitherto  been  interpreted,  of  allowing  free  entry  to  all  wearing  ap- 
parel "in  actual  use,"  embracing  all  that  "had  been"  used,  and 
collecting  duty  on  all  the  rest,  including  carpets,  whether  it  was 
known  what  they  were  to  be  used  for  or  not. 

The  Secretary  closes  his  letter  to  Mr,  Hamlin  by  saying  that  the 
case  mentioned  by  the  late  Collector  did  not  seem  to  require  any 
ftirther  action,  the  character  of  the  parties  seeming  to  preclude  any 
suspicion  of  dishonest  intentions.  Of  course  nothing  dishonest  was 
intended.  All  they  proposed  or  desired  was  to  pass  the  goods  with- 
out paying  the  duties.  Wheh  they  said  they  had  nothing  but  wear- 
ing apparel  in  use,  they  had  some  way  of  njaking  it  all  appear  right 
and  honest  in  their  own  mind.  And  in  this  regard  these  passengers 
are  not  distinguished  from  a  great  many  "  respectable  and  wealthy" 
people.  Some,  when  successful,  instead  of  thinking  they  had  done 
anything  WTong,  even  congratulate  themselves  upon  their  skill,  and 
perhaps,  as  the  Secretary  says,  "  laugh  at  the  officers  behind  their 
backs."  To  such  an  extent  is  the  public  mind  demoralized  on  this 
subject,  I  am  quite  aware  the  judgment  of  manj'  will  be  that  a  very 
meritorious  act  was  done  by  these  passengers,  and  that  Mr.  Hooper 
did  entirely  right  in  using  the  influence  he  happened  to  have  with  the 
present  Secretary,  to  set  the  law  aside  in  favor  of  the  "  wealthiest  as 
well  as  the  most  respectable  citizens  of  Boston."  For  this  is  what 
was  done.  No  further  action  meant,  not  even  the  collection  of  duty, 
and  it  has  not  been  collected.  The  law  provides  that  if  "  articles 
subject  to  dutj^  shall  be  found  in  the  baggage  of  any  person  arriving 
in  the  United  States,  which  shall  not  at  the  time  of  entry  be  mention- 
ed to  the  Collector,  by  the  person  making  the  entr^",  all  such  ai'ticles 
shall  be  forfeited,  and  the  person  in  whose  baggage  they  shall  be 
found,  shall  moreover  forfeit  and  pay  treble  the  value  of  such  arti- 
cles." I  never  asked  the  forfeiture  of  the  goods,  nor  the  payment  of 
treble  in  value,  but  did  request,  as  I  have  said,  a  pa3-ment  of  the 
duty.  The  parties  would  have  paid  the  duty  in  half  an  hour  if  ]VIi\ 
Hooper  (whom  they  will  hold  responsible  for  this  notice  of  their  case) , 
had  advised  it.  But  he  preferred  to  appeal  to  the  Secretary,  and 
never  said  anj'thing  more  to  me  on  the  subject  after  the  interview  I  have 
related  at  the  Custom  House.  I  don't  know  but  he  feels  proud  of  his 
achievement,  but  it  seems  to  me  he  must  at  times  feel  that  this  effort, 
though  successful,  to  save  for  his  friends  $219.79  in  duties  lawfully 
due  the  Government,  was,  after  all,  rather  small  business. 

THE  BORATE  CASE. 

$12,271.10  Improperly  Refunded  on  Exportation. 

A  letter  from  Mr.  French,  dated  at  Washington  on  the  22d  of 
June,  1865,  says:  — 

"  I  met  the  Secretary  to-day,  and  after  some  talk  about  the  recent  develop- 
ments of  fraud  in  Boston,  he  commented  with  some  prejudice,  I  thought,  on 
the  Borate  case,  and  likened  the  discipline  of  the  Department  to  that  of  a 
general  officer. 

"  I  showed,  in  brief,  how  Mr.  Fessenden  had  determined,  on  a  ftiU  examirf- 
ation,  that  you  were  not  to  be  interfered  with,  as  on  first  view  he  had  received 
an  erroneous  impression  of  the  case." 


to 

It  seems  the  Secretary,  after  I  had  made  every  possible  effort, 
without  success,  to  collect  a  large  sum  justly  and  lawfully  due  the 
Government  as  duties,  and  to  prevent  a  palpable  violation  of  law, 
and  had  reluctantly  executed  the  order  of  the  Department  for  the 
third  time  repeated,  to  refund  the  duties  on  the  exportation  of  1,363 
bags  of  Borate  of  Lime,  continued  to  make  my  conduct  in  the  matter 
a  subject  of  criticism.  How  justly,  the  facts  will  show.  The  follow- 
ing is  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Department :  — 

"  Treasury  Department,  July  9th,  1864. 
"  Sir :  —  In  a  letter  to  you  from  this  Department  of  May  31st,  last,  relative 
to  certain  Borate  of  Lime  imported  into  the  Port  of  Boston,  Massachusetts, 
and  seized  for  an  alleged  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  you  were  instructed, 
upon  a  discontinuance  of  the  suit  then  pending  by  the  District  Attorney,  to 
resume  your  custody  of  this  merchandise,  holding  it  subject  to  the  ftirther 
orders  of  this  Department. 

"  You  are  now  instructed  to  cancel  the  withdrawal  entry  for  consumption 
made  by  Wm.  Thwing  &  Co.,  if  they  desire  it,  and  permit  them  to  make  an 
entry  for  exportation  as  in  other  cases,  as  said  goods  have  never  been  removed 
from  the  cusfMdy  or  control  of  the  Government. 

"Respectfully,  W.  P.  FESSENDEN, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
"J.  Z.  Goodrich,  Collector,  Boston,  Mass." 

By  "  exportation  as  in  other  cases,"  was  meant  with  benefit  of 
drawback,  or  a  return  of  the  duties.  The  order  was  signed  by  Mr. 
Fessenden  because  he  was  informed  the  "  goods  had  never  been  re- 
moved from  the  custody  and  control  of  the  Government."  Knowing 
this  was  a  mistake,  and  that  the  Secretary  had  been  misinformed,  I 
deemed  it  my  duty  to  correct  him,  for  the  law  is,  "  that  no  return  of 
duties  sJiall  be  allowed  on  the  export  of  any  merchandise  after  it  has 
been  removed  from  the  custody  of  the  Government"  I  therefore  ex- 
plained the  facts  in  a  letter  dated  July  13th,  as  follows :  — 

"  The  merchandise  was  imported  and  entered  for  warehousing  on  the  28th 
of  August,  1862.  Two  days  after,  on  the  30th,  the  importers  (Wm.  Thwing  & 
Co.)  paid  the  duty  and  made  a  withdrawal  entry  for  consumption.  Where- 
upon a  permit  was  Immediately  issued  to  the  Storekeeper  directing  him  to 
deliver  it  to  them.  It  appears  from  the  Storekeeper's  return,  indorsed  on 
the  face  of  the  permit,  that  the  goods  were  '  delivered  September  12th,  1862' 
to  Messrs.  Thwing  &  Co.  (they  did  not  present  the  permit  till  then).  On  the 
11th  of  October  it  was  ascertained  that  the  duty  should  have  been  assessed  at 
5  cents  a  pound,  amounting  to  $12,271.10,  instead  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
amounting  to  $1,103.40,  the  sura  actually  paid,  and  Messrs.  Thwing  &  Co. 
were  called  upon  to  pay  the  difference,  which  they  refused  to  do,  claiming 
that  tlie  article  was  '  mineral  ore  of  Borate,'  and  subject  to  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  On  the  21st  of  October  I  proposed  to  send  the  General  Appraiser 
and  two  uierchants  as  experts  to  examine  the  article,  and  report  to  me  what 
it  Avas,  in  their  opinion.  Messrs.  Thwing  &  Co.  at  first  forbid  an  entry  upon 
the  premises,  claiming  that  the  importation  had  been  delivered  to  them  on  a 
permit  duly  obtained  at  the  Custom  House,  which  was  true.  But  upon  my 
saying  that  I  should  obtain  a  search  warrant  to  enter  their  premise,  if  they 
persisted  in  their  reftisal,  they  consented.  The  examination  was  made,  and 
upon  the  report  of  the  examiners  the  property  was  seized.  I  only  desire  to 
be  certain  that  the  facts  are  understood  by  the  Department." 

It  would  seem  hardly  possible  to  imagine  a  state  of  facts  more 
conclusively  proA-ing  that  goods  had  been  removed  from  the  custody 
Und  control  of  the  Government  to  the  custody  and  control  of  the  im- 
porter and  owner,  than  the  foregoing.  But  it  did  not  satisfy  the 
Assistant  Secretaries  at  the  Department. 


41 

On  the  26th  of  July,  Assistant  Secretary  Field  wrote  me  acknowl- 
edging the  receipt  of  mine  of  the  13th,  and  said  that  Messrs.  Tliwing 
«S:  Co.  stated  that  "  the  merchandise  remained  where  it  had  been 
ordered  to  go  on  the  warehouse  entry,  in  a  private  bonded  warehouse, 
and  has  never  been  removed  from  the  same,"  and  desired  information 
from  me  whether  the  statement  was  correct. 

To  that  I  replied  on  the  29th  July  that  "  it  (the  merchandise)  was 
never  in  a,  bonded  warehouse,  except  constructively;  never  achialbj, 
because  it  remained  on  board  the  vessel  till  it  was  delivered  to 
Thwing  &  Co.,  and  on  their  order  it  was  put  into  a  private  ware- 
house, private  in  every  sense,  and  bonded  in  no  sense. 

On  the  16th  of  the  following  August,  Assistant  Secretary  Harring- 
ton repeated  the  instructions  to  "  permit  an  exportation  from  ware- 
house without  payment  of  duty  as  in  other  cases  of  warehoused  goods, 
returning  the  dut}-  to  the  importers."  He  did  this  on  the  ground 
that  no  bond  having  been  taken  for  re-delivery  "  the  Government 
would  still  have  control  over  the  goods  wherever  it  might  find 
them.*' 

A  more  absurd  idea  probably  never  was  broached.  If  that  be  so, 
goods  in  such  case  can  never  be  taken  from  the  custody  and  control 
of  the  Government.  These  goods,  before  they  were  seized,  had  been 
in  Thwing  &  Co.'s  possession  forty  days,  and  feeling  sure  there  must 
be  some  mistake  or  something  wrong  about  it,  I  still  declined  to  exe- 
cute the  order. 

Soon  after  this  Mr.  Fessenden,  the  Secretary,  passed  through 
Boston,  and  I  saw  him.  Upon  explaining  the  case  to  him  it  was  ai> 
parent  at  once  that  he  had  not  understood  the  facts.  I  told  him  I  was 
confident  exportation  could  not  be  allowed  with  a  return  of  duties, 
without  a  plain  violation  of  law,  but  that  I  should  at  once  conform  to 
his  instructions  if  I  could  only  be  sure  he  understood  the  facts.  He 
then  asked  me  to  state  them  to  him  in  a  private  note,  which  I  did. 

On  the  16th  of  September  following  I  received  from  Assistant 
Secretary  Harrington  the  following,  among  other  questions,  which  he 
desired  me  to  answer,  which  I  did  as  follows  :  — 

"  If,  upon  the  entry,  a  warehouse  permit  was  given,  and  if  so,  was  any 
bonded  warehouse  designated  upon  it,  and  what  one?" 

"  I  answer  that  a  warehouse  permit  was  given,  upon  which  '  Kidder's 
bonded  warehouse '  was  designated  as  the  place  of  deposit." 

"  Was  this  '  Borate  of  Lime  '  taken  to  any  bonded  warehouse  in  pursuance 
of  the  designation  on  the  worehouse  permit,  and  if  so,  what  one  ?  If  not  talcen 
on  a  warehouse  permit,  was  it  taken  without  such  permit  to  a  bonded  ware- 
house, and  if  so,  to  what  one  ?  " 

"  I  answer,  it  was  not  taken  to  any  bonded  warehouse  in  pursuance  of  the 
designation  on  the  warehouse  permit,  nor  was  it  taken  to  any  bonded  ware- 
house without  such  permit ;  in  other  words,  it  was  never  taken  to  any  bonded 
warehouse." 

"  Was  a  bond  for  re-delivery  given  as  required  by  the  Act  of  May  28th,  1830, 
and  if  not,  why  not?" 

"  I  answer,  that  at  the  time  the  Borate  of  Lime  was  withdrawn,  6,800  bags 
of  '  Nitrate  of  Soda,'  imported  by  the  same  parties,  at  the  same  time,  were 
also  withdrawn.  A  re-delivery  bond,  under  the  act  of  28th  May,  1830,  was 
taken  in  a  penal  sum  of  double  the  estimated  value  of  both  articles,  but  in  fill- 
ing up  the  conditions  of  the  bond,  the  Borate  of  Lime  was  accidentally  omit- 
ted. Both  were  delivered  to  Thwing  &  Co.,  direct  from  the  ship,  on  the  per- 
mit issued  when  the  duties  were  paid,  and  neither  ever  went  into  warehouse. 
The  bond  expired  as  soon  as  the  21st  September,  certainly,  for  the  examina- 
c 


42 

tlon  of  the  Appraisers  was  closed  on  or  before  the  11th  September,  as  a  per- 
mit was  jjiven  on  that  clay  to  release  the  two  examination  packages  and  de- 
liver them  also  to  Thwing  &  Co.,  and  they  were  delivered.  The  demand  for 
re-delivery  under  the  bond,  must  have  been  made,  if  at  all,  within  ten  days 
from  the  Appraiser's  examination,  when  the  bond  expired." 

The  idea  that  this  Borate  of  Lime  remained  in  the  custody  and 
control  of  the  Government  after  it  passed  into  the  full,  undisputed, 
actual  possession  of  Thwing  &  Co.,  simply  because  it  was  not  in- 
serted in  the  condition  of  this  bond,  is,  as  I  have  said,  absurd. 
What  had  the  bond  to  do  with  the  question  of  custbdy  ?  and  especially 
could  have  to  do  with  it  after  it  had  expired  by  its  own  terms,  and 
was  a  mere  piece  of  waste  paper  ?  For  the  Borate  was  in  Thwing  & 
Co.'s  warehouse  at  least  thirty  days  after  even  the  examination 
package's  had  been  delivered,  and  the  bond  had  expired  long  before  it 
was  seized.  But  the  bond  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of 
custody,  either  before  or  after  it  expired.  If  there  had  been  any 
occasion  to  demand  a  re-delivery  of  the  goods  during  the  ten  days 
before  the  ^expiration  of  the  bond,  this  would  have  bee^  the 
consequence.  The  Government  would  have  had  the  securit}^  of  a 
bond  for  the  re-delivery  of  the  Nitrate  of  Soda,  but  no  such  security 
for  the  re-delivery  of  the  Borate  of  Lime.  Not  being  in  the  bond, 
therefore,  would  seem  to  make  the  case,  if  an3i:hing,  stronger  against 
the  custody  of  the  Government  and  in  favor  of  that  of  Thwing  &  Co. 
The  Government  had  not  even  a  bond  to  re-deliver  the' Borate. 

I  said  further  in  my  letter  replying  to  Mr.  Harrington's  questions, 
as  follows :  — 

"  In  the  invoice  the  article  is  called  '  Crude  Borax,'  while  in  the  entry 
Thwing  &  Co.  called  it  '  Mineral  Ore  of  Borate.'  On  the  trial  it  was  proved  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  jury,  who  rendered  a  verdict  for  forfeiture,  that  Thwing 
&  Co.  knew  the  article  was  '  Borate  of  Lime  '  and  subject  to  a  duty  of  5  cents 
a  pound,  but  they  entered  it  as  '  Mineral  ore  of  Borate,'  subject  to  a  duty  of 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

"  The  amount  of  duty  paid  at  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  was  $1,103.40.  The 
amount  that  should  have  been  paid  at  5  cents  a  pound  was  .$12,271.10.  The 
amount  unpaid,  viz.,  §11,167.70,  it  seems  to  rae  to  be  my  duty  to  institute  pro- 
ceediugs  to  collect." 

Such  were  the  facts  as  I  presented  them  to  the  Department.  A 
clearer  case  of  fraud  has  rarely  ever  been  presented  to  a  jury.  The 
evidence  was  abundant  from  Thwing  &,  Co.'s  own  letters.  But  upon 
questions  of  law  the  case  was  finall}-  decided  in  their  favor,  though 
the  verdict  -^as  against  them.  Under  these  circumstances  I  saw  no 
reason  whj',  in  violation  of  a  plain  and  positive  provision  of  law,  they 
should  be  aided  to  evade  not  only  the  payment  of  the  balance  of  the 
duty,  but  to  receive  back  the  amount  already  paid,  and  I  deemed  it 
mj'- duty  to  institute  proceedings  to  recover  the  balance,  viz.,  $11,- 
167.70,  and. did  so,  and  obtained  security  by  attaching  the  property. 
The  duty  either  on  Borate  of  Lime  or  Crude  Borax  was  five  cents  a 
pound,  and  there  could  have  been  no  doubt  of  recovering  that  amount. 

Some  time  after  I  forwarded  the  facts  in  a  private  note  to  Mr. 
Fessenden,  Mr.  Don-ance,  the  General  Appraiser,  saw  him  in  Wash- 
ington. He  told  Mr.  Dorrance  that  if  he  had  understood  the  facts 
he  should  not  have  issued  the  order  for  exportattion  ;  that  he  was  satis- 
fied the  Collector  was  right,  and  should  not  interfere  further,  but 
allow  him  to  proceed  and  cojlect  the  balance  of  the  duty.     Mr.  Dor- 


43 

ranee  so  reported  to  me  on  his  return  from  "Washington,  and  I  acted . 
accordingly.  Afterwards  I  saw  Mr.  Fessenden  himself,  and  he  made 
the  same  statement  to  me.  From  September  to  the  next  March, 
when  he  left  the  Department,  I  had  his  approval  in  the  prosecution 
to  recover  the  balance  of  the  dutj',  though  the  order  to  allow  the  ex- 
port and  refund  the  duty  had  not  been  formally  revoked.  It  is  hard- 
ly to  be  supposed  that  during  all  tliis  time  the  Assistant  Secretary 
had  not  learned  Mr.  Fessenden's  views. 

I  heard  nothing  more  till  I  received  the  following  letter :  — 

"  TUEASUUY  Depautmext,  June  6th,  1865. 

"  Sir :  —  My  attention  has  been  directed  by  Win.  Thwing  &  Co.  to  the  fact 
that  the  instructions  given  j-ou  on  the  9th  of  July  last  in  regard  to  the  1,363 
bags  '  Borate  of  Lime,'  have  not  been  complied  with. 

"  The  question  submitted  in  your  letter  of  the  13th  of  July,  1864,  relative  to 
the  continued  custody  of  this  lime  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  having  been 
duly  considered,  it  is  my  opinion  that  no  senous  violation  would  be  done  to 
the  law  or  regulations,  by  consideriny  this  merchandise  as  having  been  from  the 
beginning  in  the  cuilody  of  the  Collector,  and  therefore  subject  to  withdrawal. 

"  You  will  therefore  upon  receipt  of  this,  carry  into  ettect  the  decision  of 
my  predecessor  of  the  9th  July,  1864,  a  copy  of  which  is  inclosed.  You  will 
also  after  the  '  Borate  of  Lime '  shall  have  been  exported,  return  to  Wm. 
Thwing  &  Co.  the  money  deposited  with  you  as  duties  thereon ;  and  you  will 
direct  the  District  Attorney  to  discontinue  the  suit  now  pending  for  addition- 
al duties  upon  this  '  Borate  of  Lime,'  upon  the  payment  by  them  of  the  costs 
of  said  suit. 

"  Respectftilly,  H.  McCULLOCH,  Secretary  of  Treasury.    . 

J.  Z.  Goodrich,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston." 

It  is  perfectly  easy  to  "  consider"  things  to  be  true  which  are  not. 
So  it  was  easy  to  "  consider"  this  merchandise  as  having  been  from 
the  beginning  in  the  custody  of  the  Collector,  though  nothing  can 
be  more  certain  than  that  it  was  not.  No  serious  violence  !  I  hardly 
know  what  the  Secretary  means  by  serious  violence  to  the  law.  His 
language  implies  that  he  thought  the  law  was  violated,  but  not 
seriously.  When  an  importer  paj'S  the  duties  on  his  goods  and  takes 
them  into  his  own  possession,  and  means  to  do  it,  and  the  Govern- 
ment means  to  have  him;  when  he  "controls"  them  by  giving  di- 
rections where  to  store  them  on  his  own  premises,  and  they  are  stored 
in  accordance  with  his  directions,  and  the  Government  means  they 
sTiall  be,  as  was  true  in  this  case,  then  the  custody  passes  from  the 
Government  or  Collector  to  the  importer  or  owner,  —  the  goods  are 
"  removed  from  the  custody  of  the  Government"  to  his  "  custody" 
within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  If  this  is  not  what  the  law  means, 
then  it  is  unintelligible.  And  when  this  is  done  the  importer's  right 
to  a  refund  of  duty  upon  exportation  ceases,  and  every  officer,  from 
the  President  down,  is  proliihited  from  allowing  it.  The  goods  in 
James  M.  Beebe  &  Co.'s  store  were  no  more  completely  and  abso- 
lutely taken  possession  of  by  them  and  in  their  custody,  than  was 
this  Borate  of  Lime  by  Thwing  &  Co.,  and  it  would  have  been  just  as 
lawful  to  have  refunded  to  Beebe  &  Co.  the  duties  on  every  dollar  of 
their  merchandise  if  they  had  exported  it,  as  it  was  to  refund  the 
$1,103.40  to  Thwing  &  Co.  on  the  exportation  of  the  Borate,  or  rath- 
er the  $12,271.11,  for  it  was  practically  a  refund  of  the  whole  amount. 

When  I  saw  Mr.  McCulloch  I  alluded  to  this  "Borate  case,"  but 
he  refused  in  a  very  few  words  to  hear  anything  on  the  subject,  say- 
ing Assistant  Secretaries  Harrington  and  Hartley  said  it  was  right 


ii 

I  knew  the  Assistant  Secretaries  had  urged  the  arguments  for  expor- 
tation and  refund,  and  Mr.  Hooper  had  urged  the  same  views  upon 
me  at  the  Custom  House,  and  at  Washington  also,  I  had  no  doubt. 
Nevertheless,  the  balance  of  the  duties  should  have  been  collected 
and  paid  into  the  Treasury.  "Why  there  should  have  been  the  per- 
sistent opposition  to  this  course  on  the  part  of  the  Assistant  Secre- 
taries, I  never  could  understand.  I  did  all  I  could  to  have  the  col- 
lection made,  and  am  willing  to  take  the  responsibility  of  having 
made  the  effort.  If  I  erred,  it  was  in  finally  obeying  the  order.  But 
when  it  was  repeated  the  third  time,  and  I  knew  from  the  Secretary's 
reference  to  my  letter  of  the  13th  July,  that  he  understood  the  facts, 
I  informed  him  that  his  predecessor  had  been  satisfied  that  I  was 
right,  and  had  decided  to  allow  me  to  collect  the  balance  of  the  duty, 
and  then,  feeling  that  the  responsibility  was  not  on  me,  I  allowed  the 
exportation  to  be  made,  and  refunded  the  $1,103.40  of  duty  already 
paid. 

INTERVIEW  WITH  THE  SECRETARY. 

In  the  interview  I  had  with  the  Secretary,  already  referred  to,  after 
he  had  declined  to  hear  any  explanation  from  me  in  regard  to  Mr. 
Dix's  removal,  I  said  if  agreeable  to  him  I  should  like  to  call  his 
attention  for  a  few  moments  to  the  subject  of  my  continuance  in 
office,  to  which,  as  I  understood,  it  had  often  been  called  by  others. 
He  at  once  said,  as  near  as  I  can  repeat  his  words:  —  "Probably 
there  will  be  a  change ;  there  has  been  no  final  decision,  but  that  is 
the  expectation.     It  will  be  made,  however,  in  a  way  that  will  in  no 
manner  affect  you,  as  you  will  all  go  out  together"  (meaning  Collect- 
or, Naval  Officer,  and  Survejor),   adding   '-^  there  is  nothing  in  the 
affair  against  you."     He  went  on  to  assign  the  reasons  for  the  pro- 
posed  change ;    said,  to  use  his  own  words,  "  it  is  necessary  on 
party  grounds ;    the   Republican  organization   cannot  be  sustained 
without  making  changes  in  offices  so  lucrative  as  these."     I  replied 
that  I  should  be  the  last  man  to  complain  of  a  general  policy  such  as 
he  indicated,  because  in  its  execution  it  might  reach  me,  but  the  diffi- 
culty was  the  Administration  had  no  such  policy  ;  it  was  all  the  other 
way,  so  far  as  I  knew.    I  referred  to  the  recent  re-appointment  of  the 
United  States  Marshal,  District  Attorney,  and  Postmaster  of  Boston. 
I  know,  said  Mr.  McCulloch,  that  is  as  you  state,  but  I  would  not 
have  re-appointed  Mr.  Palfrey.     But  did  you  not,  I  inquired,  onlj^  the 
week  before  re-appoint  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Philadelphia,  to  the  very  office 
in  that  city  which  I  hold  in  Boston,  and  at  the  same  salary?     Yes, 
he  replied,  that  is  true,  but  it  was  done  with  no  understanding  that 
it  was  to  continue.    I  do  not  know,  said  I,  how  long  it  is  to  continue, 
I  only  know  that  he  has  just  been  re-appointed.     I  was  re-appointed 
on  the  13th  of  March  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  I  hold  a  renewed  commis- 
sion signed  by  him  and  yourself.     The  question  therefore  is,  does  the 
policy  of  the  Administration  and  the  best  interest  of  the  Republican 
organization  —  for  it  is  on  that  ground  you  put  it  entirely  —  require 
Mr.  Thomas's  re-appointment  and  ray  removal?     So  far  as  I  know 
there  has  not  been  a  single  removal  among  those  who  had  been  re- 
appointed by  Mr.  Lincoln.     The  rule  has  been  to  re-appoint,  rather 
than  to  remove  those  who  had  been  re-appointed.     It  will,  therefore, 
look  like  singling  out  and  removing  me,  not  to  sustain  the  Rupubli- 


45 

can  organization,  but  for  some  other  reason.  This  is  substantially 
what  passed  between  us  on  this  point. 

If  this  was  the  reason  for  my  removal,  and  there  was  nothing  in 
the  office  against  me,  is  it  riot  a  little  singular  that  the  Secretary  was 
not  more  frank  and  communicative  on  other  subjects  ?  It  was  more 
than  two  mouths  after  his  confidential  correspondence  with  the 
Messrs.  Williams  in  regard  to  the  rumored  missing  $32,000,  of  which 
I  had  then  heard  nothing.  If  he  had  any  suspicion  against  me  of 
wrong  in  that  matter,  he  had  no  right  to  tell  me  there  was 
nothing  in  the  office  against  me.  If  he  had  no  such  suspicion,  why 
did  he  not  confer  with  me,  as  well  as  with  the  parties  who  had  paid 
so  much,  if  not  to  bribe,  at  least  to  improperlj'  influence  somebod}'  in 
the  settlement  —  which  is  the  only  inference  to  be  drawn  from  their 
own  testimony.  I  was  the  Collector,  and  the  very  officer  to  confer 
Avith,  if  not  suspected.  And  how  came  the  Messrs.  Williams  to  disclose 
the  fact  that  they  had  made  any  such  payment  at  all?  for  they  must 
have  disclosed  it.  I  had  heard  of  their  great  desire  to  procure  my 
removal,  and  of  their  willingness  to  contribute  liberally  towards  it, 
and  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  such  was  their  desire.  They  cer- 
tainly would  have  kept  au}^  such  pajment  to  themselves  if  some 
strong  motive  had  not  impelled  them  to  disclose  it.  What  other 
motive  could  have  influenced  them  than  the  hope  that  it  might  in 
some  way  be  used  in  accomplishing  my  removal?  Assuming  this  to 
have  been  the  motive,  —  and  I  can  think  of  no  other,  —  it  shows  the 
instrument  the  Secretary  was  wittingly  or  unwittingly  using.  How 
thej*  ^rst  presented  the  matter  in  their  correspondence  with  him,  I 
cannot  learn.  That  is  confidential.  But  why  should  the  Secretary 
treat  it  as  confidenttal,  so  far  as  I  was  conceraed,  if  there  was  nothing 
against  me  in  it?  It  is  known  that  Mr.  Hooper,  while  talking  with 
other  members  of  the  delegation  in  regard  to  my  removal,  said  he 
also  had  a  confidential  letter  from  the  Secretary,  and  that  the  Depart- 
ment thought  there  Avas  something  wrong  about  this  Williams  settle- 
ment. This  was  all  before  I  saw  the  Secretary,  and  I  inquire 
again,  if  he  gave  the  true  reason  for  removing  me,  and  there  was 
no  suspicion  against  me,  why  did  he  not  say  something  to  me  about 
this  matter?  If  he  suspected  somebody  else  and  not  me,  whj'  did  he 
not  tell  me  he  proposed  to  order  an  investigation  before  the  grand 
jury  ?  But  if  he  suspected  me,  why  did  he  not  order  an  investigation 
before  my  removal,  and  notify  me,  that  I  might  leave  the  office  exon- 
erated, or  with  the  suspicion  confirmed?  Why  AvaS  I  kept  in  igno- 
rance, and  why,  every  now  and  then,  Avere  things  allowed  to  come  from 
the  Department  calculated  to  excite  suspicion  against  me,  if  really 
there  Avas  none? 

In  reply  to  the  Secretary's  suggestion  that  the  office  was  a  lucratiA'e 
one,  I  said  I  had  made  nothing  by  it  during  my  first  term,  or  during 
the  war.  You  don't  mean,  he  inquired,  that  you  ha\'e  not  received  a 
large  salary  and  more  or  less  perquisites.  No,  sir,  I  answered,  but  I 
gave  it  all  beyond  enough  for  my  current  expenses,  which  were  not 
extravant,  to  the  support  of  the  war  in  some  form  or  other,  either 
thi-ough  the  Government  direct,  or  the  various  voluntary  organiza- 
tions Avhich  grew  out  of  the  war  and  Avere  used  indirectly  as  aids  and 
supports  to  it.  Finding  myself  in  office  Avhen  the  Avar  broke  out,  I 
determined  while  it  lasted  to  devote  what  I  made  by  it  to  the  country 


46 

in  some  way,  and  did.  Tlie  Secretary  responded,  "  I  know  it,  Mr. 
Goodrich,  I  have  learned  all  this  from  other  sources,  and  have  no 
doubt  it  is  true  ;  and  I  know  another  thing,  I  know  you  well  enough 
to  know  that  if  j  ou  had  not  been  in  office,  you  would  have  done  just 
as  much  for  the  war."  1  thanked  him,  and  simply  remarked  that  of 
course  I  should  have  had  less  to  do  with. 

The  Secretary  did,  however,  finally  say  that  I  was  unpopular  with 
the  merchants.  This  I  admitted  was  true  with  a  certain  class  of 
merchants,  and  if  that  unpopularity  was  deemed  to  be  a  sufficient 
reason  for  removal,  when  the  cause  of  it  was  considered,  I  had  not  a 
word  to  say.  I  could  not  promise  a  change  that  would  be  at  all  satis- 
factory to  the  merchants  referred  to.  I  claimed,  however,  that  it 
was  not  true  with  another  class  of  merchants,  importers  and  citizens, 
who  desired  an  honest,  impartial,  and  faithful  administration  of  the 
office.  As  CA'idence  of  this  I  handed  the  Secretary  papers  of  which 
the  following  are  copies,  furnished  without  solicitation  on  my  part, 
which  he  read.  I  avail  myself  of  them  now  not  alone  because  they 
were  part  of  the  case  before  the  President  and  Secretary,  but  especially 
because  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  injure  me  as  a  man  of  integrity  :  — 

"  To  the  Hon.  H.  McOulloch,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 

"  Sir:  —  Will  you  permit  the  undersigned,  merchants  and  citizens  of  Bos- 
ton, to  give  expression  to  our  hearty  and  entire  satisfaction  with  the  course 
of  the  Hon.  John  Z.  Goodrich,  during  the  four  pears  of  his  Collectorship  at 
this  port ;  and  to  testify  to  the  ability,  impartiality,  fidelity,  and  general  pub- 
lic approval  with  which  he  has  performed  the  various  and  di'^iicult  duties  of 
his  office.  If  he  has  not  secured  the  fiill  approval  of  the  entire  business  com- 
"munity,  we  cannot  but  attribute  any  dissatisfaction  which  may  exist,  to  the 
conscientiousness  with  which  he  has  administered  his  trust,  and  to  the  de- 
termination he  has  continually  manifested  that  the  interests  of  the  Govern- 
ment, so  far  as  confided  to  him,  might  be  always  and  fliUy  protected  and 
promoted. 

"  We  venture,  therefore,to  express  the  earnest  hope,  that  for  the  sake  of  the 
commerce  of  Boston  and  the  benefit  of  the  revenue  service  of  the  United  States, 
it  will  be  in  accordance  with  the  views  and  arrangements  of  the  Depart- 
ment that  Mr  Goodrich  should  continue  to  occupy  the  position  of  Collector 
of  Customs  at  this  port,  and  trust  that  we  may  rely  on  your  personal  influence 
to  that  end.  We  have  the  honor  to  subscribe  ourselves, 
"Yours  very  truly, 

"  Boston,  July  3d,  18G5. 

"J.  M.  Forbes,  Alpheus  Hardy  &  Co., 

Charles  G.  Loring,  W.  Ropes  &  Co., 

Edward, S.  Tobey,  George  C.  Kichardson, 

James  M.  Beebe  &  Co.,  John  M.  S.  Williams, 

James  L.  Little,  Amos  A.  Lawrence, 

Charles  Stoddard,  Samuel  H.  Walley, 

Samuel  R.  Payson,  Thomas  Lamb, 

.Tabez  C.  Howe,  Osborn  Howes, 

C.  F.  Hovey  &  Co.,  Jas.  H.  Beal, 

White,  Brown  &  Co.,  F.  Haven, 

J.  Wiley  Edmands,  T.  V.  Chandler, 

E.  A.  Boardman,  Daniel  Denny, 

Benjamin  E.  Bates,  E.  R.  Mudge, 

William  Claflin,  W.  D.  Forbes, 

Homer  Bartlett,  J.  C.  Tyler  &  Co." 
William  Hilton  &  Co., 

"  Boston,  July  18th,  1865. 
"  Dear  Sir :  —  I  hear  that  there  is  an  attempt  being  made  by  parties  in  this 
city  to  remove  the  Hon.  J.  Z.  Goodrich  from  the  office  of  Collector  of  this 
port.     Mr.  Goodrich  has  enjoyed,  for  a  long  time,  the  confidence  of  the  sup- 


47 

porters  of  the  Government  in  the  State,  and  received  his  appointment  on  the 
unanimous  recommendation  of  the  Delegation. 

"lie  has  always  labored  earnestly  for  the  success  of  the  Union  cause,  and 
contributed  most  generously  of  his  means  for  that  purpose. 

"  No  one  questions  his  integrity,  or  his  faithfulness  and  care  of  the  interests 
of  the  Government.  He  has  discharged  the  duties  of  his  office  with  general 
acceptiince,  and  the  few  complaints  that  are  made  are  from  those  whose  inter- 
ests have  been  antagonistic  to  the  Government,  and  who  have  felt  themselves 
aggrieved  by  his  care  and  vigilance. 

"  His  removal  at  the  present  time  would  encourage  those  who  are  ready  to 
defraud  the  revenue,  to  persist  in  their  peculations,  and'  deter  honest  and 
faithful  officers  from  active  perseverance  in  ferreting  out  coxTuption  and 
fraud. 

"  Shall  men  who  have  swindled  the  Government  out  of  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  dollars,  seek  to  obtain  their  revenge  in  this  manner? 

"  I  speak  plainly,  for  I  believe  no  good  can  come  by  the  removal  of  the 
present  Collector,  and  that  it  is  mainly  sought  by  those  whose  sympathies 
have  not  been,  and  are  not  now  with  the  Government. 

"  I  will  add,  that  I  am  under  no  obligation  in  any  way  to  the  Collector,  and 
that  I  have  no  interest  in  the  matter  other  than  to  have  a  capable,  faithftd, 
honest  man,  as  he  has  proved  himself,  in  so  important  a  position  as  the  chieiT 
of  the  Boston  Custom  House. 

"  I  am,  sir,  with  the  highest  respect,  yours  truly, 

"  WILLIAM  CLAFLIN, 
"  Chairman  of  the  llepublican  Committee. 

"  To  THE  Pkesidext." 

"WoKCESTER,  (Mass.),  Juljf  10,  1865. 
"Sir:  —  I  have  been  informed  that  some  eflbrts  are  likely  to  be  made  to 
procure  a  change  in  the  office  of  Collector  of  the  port  of  Boston. 

"  I  do  not  know  who  may  be  spoken  of;  but  I  do  know  that  Mr.  Goodrich, 
who  has  but  recently  received  a  re-appointment,  is  not  only  most  faithful  and 
able  as  an  officer  —  fully  up  to  the  highest  standard  of  requisite  qualifications 
—  but  is  in  full  sympathy  and  confidence  with  the  llepublicaus  of  Massachu- 
setts and  Kew  England. 

"  Mr.  Goodrich,  for  the  whole  term  of  the  existence  of  the  Republican  party, 
has  been  a  generous  and  laborious  friend.  He  labored  in  season  and  out  of 
season  as  a  member  of  the  National  Executive  Committee,  and  was  regarded, 
everywhere  all  over  the  country,  -as  one  of  the  pillars  of  that  organization. 
His  purse  and  his  time  have  been  given  alike  to  the  cause.  I  cannot  see  any 
possible  reason  why  he  should  be  I'elieved  of  his  office. 
"  Very  respectfully, 

"  ALEXANDER  H.  BULLOCK, 
*'  Speaker  Mass.  House  Representatives. 
"  The  Honorable,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury." 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  from  J.  F.  Bailey,  Esq.,  so  long 
Special  Agent  of  the  Department,  to  Secretary  McCulloch,  dated 
July  3d,  1865,  I  did  not  hand  him,  but  he  had  received  it  through  the 
mail :  — 

"  I  have  known  intimately  the  official  character  and  conduct  of  Mr.  Good- 
rich, and  of  all  men  whom  I  have  so  known,  there  is  no  one  more  loyal  to 
public  duty,  more  firm  or  clear  in  his  political  convictions  and  actions,  or 
more  frank  and  honorable  in  personal  relations.  I  know  of  no  officer  of  the 
Customs  service  whose  conduct  has  been  regu-lated  more  completely  by  the 
single  consideration  of  duty,  than  in  the  case  of  the  present  Collector." 

No  man  conld  have  had  a  better  opportunity  to  form  a  correct  opin- 
ion of  my  official  conduct  than  Mr.  Bailey.  It  was  part  of  his  duty, 
as  special. agent,  to  inform  himself  on  that  very  point. 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  objecting  simply  because  I  was  removed  from 
otBce.  I  never  laid  tlie  leaving  of  office  to  heart  a  moment,  and  Avas  glad  to 
be  succeeded  by  so  true  a  man  as  Mr.  Hamlin.    In  the  matter  of  office  holding 


48 

nobody  has  rights,  —  certainly  I  never  claimed  any  —  and  consequently  no  one 
has  a  right  to  complain  simply  because  he  has  been  dismissed  from  the  public 
service. 

I  was  made  Collector — the  only  office  I  ever  held  by  appointment  under  the 
Government,  —  upon  the  unanimous  retiuest  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation. 
I  did  nothing  whatever  to  obtain  the  office,  and  when  the  subject  of  my  removal 
began  to  be  agitated,  I  determined  to  do  nothing  to  retain  it.  I  however 
afterwards  at  the  earnest  and  repeated  request  of  a  good  many  friends,  con- 
sented to  take  the  testimonials  which  had  been  voluntarily  furnished  me, 
and  go  to  Washingto'n,  and  present  them  with  my  respects  to  the  Secretary, 
■whom  I  desired  to  see  also  on  other  matters.  I  told  him  they  represented 
correctly  the  general  sentiment  of  Boston  and  vicinity,  as  I  had  been  assured 
and  believed,  which  was  all  I  proposed  to  say  on  the  subject.  What  further 
I  said  was  in  reply  to  statements  made  by  him  of  his  reasons  for  the  removal. 
I  never  thought  the  Secretary  was  candid  in  what  he  said  on  that  subject. 

Let  me  rather  be  understood  as  only  desiring,  besides  exposing  gross  frauds 
and  improprieties,  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  my  record  as  collector  against 
any  and  all  who  have  attempted  to  impeach  it.  If  nothing  had  been  done  but 
to  remove  me,  I  should  have  been  more  than  content  and  never  made  this  ex- 
position and  defence.  The  exposition  has  sufficiently  indicated  my  conduct 
and  the  principlesffiat  govern  me,  to  enable  every  one  to  decide  for  himself 
whether  I  was  riglit  or  wrong.  That  is  the  question,  and  the  whole  of  it.  Was 
my  course  as  collector  right  or  icrong?  I  have  no  interest  in  this  question 
which  is  separate  from  the  public  interest.  What  I  did  as  collector,  I  did  for 
the  public,  and  if  it  was  right  the  public  must  approve  it  or  lower  the  standard 
of  honesty  and  morals.  I  think  the  standard  should  be  raised  rather  than 
lowered.  It  is  just  as  dishonest  to  defraud  the  Government  as  to  detVaud  an 
individual,  though  many  do  not  so  regard  it.  And  there  are  many  ways  of 
defrauding  the  Government.  It  may  be  done,  and  is  often  done,  by  a  dishonest 
interpretation  or  perversion  of  the  law,  and  this  mode  of  taking  mony  from  he 
Treasury  is  just  as  fraudulent  as  any  other. 

As  to  my  unpopularity  of  which  so  much  has  been  said,  I  hazard 
nothing  in  saying  that  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  it  may  be  account- 
ed for  by  the  cases  1  have  explained,  and  others  like,  are  not  very 
unlike  thera,  which  may  be  as  satisfactory  explained,  and  shall  be  if 
necessary.  Some  of  these  are  still  pending,  and  cannot  now  be 
properly  explained.  But  I  should  like  to  see  the  merchant  who  has 
been  ready  to  disclose  the  exact  truth,  and  conform  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  law,  who  has  had  any  difficulty  with  me. 

Quite  too  much  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  want  of  commercial 
experience.  How  could  more  commercial  experience  have  aided  me  in 
dealing  with  the  Williams  and  Chenery  frauds  ?  They  were  simple  and 
pure  frauds,  but  no  more  difficult  to  comprehend  because  they  occurred 
in  commercial  trjinsanctions.  Even  less  of  a  certain  kind  of  commer- 
cial experience  would  have  been  of  decided  advantage  in  the  cases  I 
have  related.  The  truth  is,  as  I  intimated  at  the  commencement,  the 
greater  want  is  more  commercial  integrity. 

The  law  has  been  my  guide,  and  1  have  believed  in  giving  it  the 
same  interpretation  to-day  that  was  given  to  it  yesterday,  and  the 
same  also,  whether  applicable  to  our  class  or  another. 

The   Difference. 

My  acts  under  Secretaries  Chase  and  Fessenden  were  approved, 
and  after  a  four  years'  term  of  service*,  the  lamented  Lincoln  wrote 
me  and  said,  "  I  am  not  aware  of  any  objection,  personal^  pulitical,  or 
ojficidl  to  ycnir  re-appointment."  But  under  Secrelar3'  McCuUoch  and 
President  Johnson,  my  acts  were  disapproved,  and  in  some  instances 
Ml-.  McCulloch  reviewed  and  reversed  the  decisions  of  his  predecessors. 


A    000  809  318    9 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


